Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Boren's rattling chains. What does that mean?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #21
RE: Boren's rattling chains. What does that mean?
(06-27-2015 11:54 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  
(06-26-2015 09:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Jayhawkmvp, the PAC is not going to gain favors until they sell part interest in their network. I don't think they will expand again until they do. Therefore they are not a factor in further realignment as is unless they take leftovers.

They would be foolish not to try and selling a piece of their network could be part of their pitch. They are in a weak position and have few cards to play, put they will still play the cards they can. They have too. There are some quietly unhappy schools in the PAC with the revenue they are receiving right now.

Landthieves has really swung to the SEC right now. They want out to any of the PAC, B!G, or SEC, but the SEC has really gained momentum there.

The SEC has always been the favored landing spot there. What you are seeing over there right now is a mini invasion by a couple of heavily posting Longhorn guys. They both post heavily on other Longhorn sites so they are pushing a common theme. Some Longhorn fans want to see Oklahoma go to the SEC because the combo of Texas A&M with Oklahoma is enough to pull Texas to the SEC in their opinion.

They might be right in that regard. I highly doubt Texas would want to see a rivalry build up between Oklahoma and The Aggies.

Thing is though, Boren is much like leadership of Maryland. His and other academia are going to heavily favor a Big Ten invite. The question is how strongly some boosters will influence him.

Perhaps, he is already under an NDA and those severely hamper the influence that big boosters can exert.
06-27-2015 01:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Boren's rattling chains. What does that mean?
(06-27-2015 01:06 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(06-27-2015 11:54 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  
(06-26-2015 09:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Jayhawkmvp, the PAC is not going to gain favors until they sell part interest in their network. I don't think they will expand again until they do. Therefore they are not a factor in further realignment as is unless they take leftovers.

They would be foolish not to try and selling a piece of their network could be part of their pitch. They are in a weak position and have few cards to play, put they will still play the cards they can. They have too. There are some quietly unhappy schools in the PAC with the revenue they are receiving right now.

Landthieves has really swung to the SEC right now. They want out to any of the PAC, B!G, or SEC, but the SEC has really gained momentum there.

The SEC has always been the favored landing spot there. What you are seeing over there right now is a mini invasion by a couple of heavily posting Longhorn guys. They both post heavily on other Longhorn sites so they are pushing a common theme. Some Longhorn fans want to see Oklahoma go to the SEC because the combo of Texas A&M with Oklahoma is enough to pull Texas to the SEC in their opinion.

They might be right in that regard. I highly doubt Texas would want to see a rivalry build up between Oklahoma and The Aggies.

Thing is though, Boren is much like leadership of Maryland. His and other academia are going to heavily favor a Big Ten invite. The question is how strongly some boosters will influence him.

Perhaps, he is already under an NDA and those severely hamper the influence that big boosters can exert.

There are some things that distinguish the Oklahoma situation from that of Maryland. Oklahoma doesn't have a billowing debt problem, Maryland did and still does. Maryland didn't have a little brother, Oklahoma does and how much they are politically tied is of some debate. Oklahoma has wealthy contributors who are divided on where they would like to the Sooners to go. Maryland had one extremely wealthy donor who greased the skids to the Big 10. So, Maryland had its ducks in a row to go to the Big 10 against the majority of alumni wishes and they were able to get the job done. Oklahoma's ducks are all over the pond and they don't know where to shoot first. OU is still anybody's guess and anybody's game.
06-27-2015 01:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #23
RE: Boren's rattling chains. What does that mean?
(06-27-2015 01:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-27-2015 01:06 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(06-27-2015 11:54 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  
(06-26-2015 09:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Jayhawkmvp, the PAC is not going to gain favors until they sell part interest in their network. I don't think they will expand again until they do. Therefore they are not a factor in further realignment as is unless they take leftovers.

They would be foolish not to try and selling a piece of their network could be part of their pitch. They are in a weak position and have few cards to play, put they will still play the cards they can. They have too. There are some quietly unhappy schools in the PAC with the revenue they are receiving right now.

Landthieves has really swung to the SEC right now. They want out to any of the PAC, B!G, or SEC, but the SEC has really gained momentum there.

The SEC has always been the favored landing spot there. What you are seeing over there right now is a mini invasion by a couple of heavily posting Longhorn guys. They both post heavily on other Longhorn sites so they are pushing a common theme. Some Longhorn fans want to see Oklahoma go to the SEC because the combo of Texas A&M with Oklahoma is enough to pull Texas to the SEC in their opinion.

They might be right in that regard. I highly doubt Texas would want to see a rivalry build up between Oklahoma and The Aggies.

Thing is though, Boren is much like leadership of Maryland. His and other academia are going to heavily favor a Big Ten invite. The question is how strongly some boosters will influence him.

Perhaps, he is already under an NDA and those severely hamper the influence that big boosters can exert.

There are some things that distinguish the Oklahoma situation from that of Maryland. Oklahoma doesn't have a billowing debt problem, Maryland did and still does. Maryland didn't have a little brother, Oklahoma does and how much they are politically tied is of some debate. Oklahoma has wealthy contributors who are divided on where they would like to the Sooners to go. Maryland had one extremely wealthy donor who greased the skids to the Big 10. So, Maryland had its ducks in a row to go to the Big 10 against the majority of alumni wishes and they were able to get the job done. Oklahoma's ducks are all over the pond and they don't know where to shoot first. OU is still anybody's guess and anybody's game.

All of those comparisons you just made between Maryland and Oklahoma don't matter. What matters and what I was alluding to is that the guys at the top of both schools prefer the likes of The Big Ten. Maryland made that move by acting under the protection of an NDA which nullified the usual buffering faced by traditional boosters that might have caused trouble for that move.

The same can be said for Oklahoma if Boren is acting under an NDA with The Big Ten. He wont be able to tell his boosters anything, he will just tell them that there are no talks and he will be legally protected to lie like that.
06-27-2015 01:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #24
RE: Boren's rattling chains. What does that mean?
(06-27-2015 01:20 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(06-27-2015 01:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-27-2015 01:06 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(06-27-2015 11:54 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  
(06-26-2015 09:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Jayhawkmvp, the PAC is not going to gain favors until they sell part interest in their network. I don't think they will expand again until they do. Therefore they are not a factor in further realignment as is unless they take leftovers.

They would be foolish not to try and selling a piece of their network could be part of their pitch. They are in a weak position and have few cards to play, put they will still play the cards they can. They have too. There are some quietly unhappy schools in the PAC with the revenue they are receiving right now.

Landthieves has really swung to the SEC right now. They want out to any of the PAC, B!G, or SEC, but the SEC has really gained momentum there.

The SEC has always been the favored landing spot there. What you are seeing over there right now is a mini invasion by a couple of heavily posting Longhorn guys. They both post heavily on other Longhorn sites so they are pushing a common theme. Some Longhorn fans want to see Oklahoma go to the SEC because the combo of Texas A&M with Oklahoma is enough to pull Texas to the SEC in their opinion.

They might be right in that regard. I highly doubt Texas would want to see a rivalry build up between Oklahoma and The Aggies.

Thing is though, Boren is much like leadership of Maryland. His and other academia are going to heavily favor a Big Ten invite. The question is how strongly some boosters will influence him.

Perhaps, he is already under an NDA and those severely hamper the influence that big boosters can exert.

There are some things that distinguish the Oklahoma situation from that of Maryland. Oklahoma doesn't have a billowing debt problem, Maryland did and still does. Maryland didn't have a little brother, Oklahoma does and how much they are politically tied is of some debate. Oklahoma has wealthy contributors who are divided on where they would like to the Sooners to go. Maryland had one extremely wealthy donor who greased the skids to the Big 10. So, Maryland had its ducks in a row to go to the Big 10 against the majority of alumni wishes and they were able to get the job done. Oklahoma's ducks are all over the pond and they don't know where to shoot first. OU is still anybody's guess and anybody's game.

All of those comparisons you just made between Maryland and Oklahoma don't matter. What matters and what I was alluding to is that the guys at the top of both schools prefer the likes of The Big Ten. Maryland made that move by acting under the protection of an NDA which nullified the usual buffering faced by traditional boosters that might have caused trouble for that move.

The same can be said for Oklahoma if Boren is acting under an NDA with The Big Ten. He wont be able to tell his boosters anything, he will just tell them that there are no talks and he will be legally protected to lie like that.

An NDA cannot stop, or override the BOR in Oklahoma. Approval still has to come from the BOR. The BOR is comprised of wealthy business people who are big money donors to both OU and OSU. Maryland didn't have that problem. Boren couldn't pull off the same crap that Loh did at Maryland, and as a former governor of the state of Oklahoma and one who would likely want to retire in the state where he earned his life honors he isn't going to screw that up with an NDA. H1 virtually all conferences utilize the NDA during negotiations, but practically none of them accept an agreement that has not been vetted politically in the home state of the applying school. And most presidents would never try to step around their BOR, or Trustees to accomplish such. What Loh did was really unprecedented but only stand alone state schools could pull that off without some kind of leak. Nebraska, Arkansas, Maryland, and Missouri come to mind.
(This post was last modified: 06-27-2015 01:26 PM by JRsec.)
06-27-2015 01:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
omniorange Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,144
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 251
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:

Donators
Post: #25
RE: Boren's rattling chains. What does that mean?
(06-27-2015 12:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Neil I truly understand your line of reasoning here and I cannot deny that it has merit. But consider the moving parts and their value. Texas>Florida State. Right now T.C.U. and Baylor in football strength are both > Virginia Tech. Texas is the one with long standing relations with Notre Dame. Furthermore if T.C.U. and Baylor tag along the price to Texas would be full membership in the ACC, not some independent deal. There's your value added which exceeds value lost. You lose Florida State and you don't lose Florida. You pick up UT and at least T.C.U. and you gain virtually all of Texas. You lose Virginia Tech and you do not lose Virginia. It doesn't really matter who comes with Texas. Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Iowa State could just as easily work from an academic stand point and from a market standpoint would be better. But if football cache is to be replaced then the four I suggested would bring the biggest bang short of the ACC addding OU with Texas.

As ESPN themselves have said, value isn't based upon what have you done over the past decade or so. So your attempt to get equivalent value falls short, imho. We already know that in terms of the state of Florida the two most popular teams are the Gators and the Noles with the Gators ahead. Having Miami helps to even that out for the ACC. To take FSU out of the ACC means the ACC basically loses the state of Florida, even though Miami remains. Also, taking the most popular football team from the state of Virginia out of the ACC only does further damage. How does ESPN gain with the ACC by adding the state of Texas but losing its strongest presence in the states of Florida and Virginia?

ESPN has two basically exclusive properties - the SEC and the ACC. They have done more than enough in terms of the SEC to keep them happy through the next two decades. The SEC isn't going anywhere. If anything, I believe that when the next SEC national contract is up (which will end prior to the other stuff), the CBS part of their contract could likely become an exclusive ABC contract. But that's a ways off so that is certainly subject to change and probably more dependent upon what happens with the upcoming B1G Tier 1 contract, Texas, and ND prior to then.

After their love affair with the SEC (and well earned on the SEC's part) and owning the ACC (which was coveted by ESPN for its basketball more so than its football) it is no secret that ESPN covets the single entities of Texas and ND. I think if they truly coveted OU, they would have made a similar deal with the Sooners as thye did the Longhorns. So I see OU as a nice to have for ESPN, but not a necessity.

With the Irish, ESPN basically now has ND for everything but Irish home football games (while securing 2 or 3 football away games due to the ACC scheduling agreement) and their hockey games. That may be enough for them, since apparently they are unwilling to give ND the same guarantee that NBC does of televising every single home game on ABC. At least that is what I assume the stumbling block to be in getting the ND home football games contract.

In Texas, they have joint rights of the Tier 1 football games (with FOX) and then they have exclusive rights with LHN. Last year, Texas vs Oklahoma was on ABC at noon and Texas at KState on ESPN also at noon were the only two Texas games that were broadcast on ABC/ESPN. ISU at Texas and North Texas at Texas were the two LHN broadcasts. The previous year was only slightly better.

If they truly want to expand their inventory with Texas, I think we both agree that will only be achieved by either getting Texas into the SEC or in the ACC via full membership or an ND-type deal and converting the LHN contract into the equivalent of the ND NBC contract for home football games, but with Texas allowing for some of those games to be played on an ESPN/ESPN2 and an ACCN.

What the price would be for the ACC to get Texas either as a full member or as a partial with an ND type deal is unknown. And will the ACC be willing to paid whatever that price remains to be seen? I do know that they will strongly object to that price being both FSU and VT. How much their objections will influence the final outcome, if that is indeed part of the price, also remains to be seen.

Cheers,
Neil
06-27-2015 01:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #26
RE: Boren's rattling chains. What does that mean?
(06-27-2015 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-27-2015 01:20 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(06-27-2015 01:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-27-2015 01:06 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(06-27-2015 11:54 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  They would be foolish not to try and selling a piece of their network could be part of their pitch. They are in a weak position and have few cards to play, put they will still play the cards they can. They have too. There are some quietly unhappy schools in the PAC with the revenue they are receiving right now.

Landthieves has really swung to the SEC right now. They want out to any of the PAC, B!G, or SEC, but the SEC has really gained momentum there.

The SEC has always been the favored landing spot there. What you are seeing over there right now is a mini invasion by a couple of heavily posting Longhorn guys. They both post heavily on other Longhorn sites so they are pushing a common theme. Some Longhorn fans want to see Oklahoma go to the SEC because the combo of Texas A&M with Oklahoma is enough to pull Texas to the SEC in their opinion.

They might be right in that regard. I highly doubt Texas would want to see a rivalry build up between Oklahoma and The Aggies.

Thing is though, Boren is much like leadership of Maryland. His and other academia are going to heavily favor a Big Ten invite. The question is how strongly some boosters will influence him.

Perhaps, he is already under an NDA and those severely hamper the influence that big boosters can exert.

There are some things that distinguish the Oklahoma situation from that of Maryland. Oklahoma doesn't have a billowing debt problem, Maryland did and still does. Maryland didn't have a little brother, Oklahoma does and how much they are politically tied is of some debate. Oklahoma has wealthy contributors who are divided on where they would like to the Sooners to go. Maryland had one extremely wealthy donor who greased the skids to the Big 10. So, Maryland had its ducks in a row to go to the Big 10 against the majority of alumni wishes and they were able to get the job done. Oklahoma's ducks are all over the pond and they don't know where to shoot first. OU is still anybody's guess and anybody's game.

All of those comparisons you just made between Maryland and Oklahoma don't matter. What matters and what I was alluding to is that the guys at the top of both schools prefer the likes of The Big Ten. Maryland made that move by acting under the protection of an NDA which nullified the usual buffering faced by traditional boosters that might have caused trouble for that move.

The same can be said for Oklahoma if Boren is acting under an NDA with The Big Ten. He wont be able to tell his boosters anything, he will just tell them that there are no talks and he will be legally protected to lie like that.

An NDA cannot stop, or override the BOR in Oklahoma. Approval still has to come from the BOR. The BOR is comprised of wealthy business people who are big money donors to both OU and OSU. Maryland didn't have that problem. Boren couldn't pull off the same crap that Loh did at Maryland, and as a former governor of the state of Oklahoma and one who would likely want to retire in the state where he earned his life honors he isn't going to screw that up with an NDA. H1 virtually all conferences utilize the NDA during negotiations, but practically none of them accept an agreement that has not been vetted politically in the home state of the applying school. And most presidents would never try to step around their BOR, or Trustees to accomplish such. What Loh did was really unprecedented but only stand alone state schools could pull that off without some kind of leak. Nebraska, Arkansas, Maryland, and Missouri come to mind.

Fair enough, but it isn't a stretch to think that Regents of the school will make a University first decision. I am not attacking the SEC with this but in a direct comparison between The SEC and The Big Ten, each has their pro's and con's. It is just as likely that the Regents of the University would want the University among the schools of The Big Ten.
06-27-2015 01:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #27
RE: Boren's rattling chains. What does that mean?
(06-27-2015 01:42 PM)omniorange Wrote:  
(06-27-2015 12:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Neil I truly understand your line of reasoning here and I cannot deny that it has merit. But consider the moving parts and their value. Texas>Florida State. Right now T.C.U. and Baylor in football strength are both > Virginia Tech. Texas is the one with long standing relations with Notre Dame. Furthermore if T.C.U. and Baylor tag along the price to Texas would be full membership in the ACC, not some independent deal. There's your value added which exceeds value lost. You lose Florida State and you don't lose Florida. You pick up UT and at least T.C.U. and you gain virtually all of Texas. You lose Virginia Tech and you do not lose Virginia. It doesn't really matter who comes with Texas. Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Iowa State could just as easily work from an academic stand point and from a market standpoint would be better. But if football cache is to be replaced then the four I suggested would bring the biggest bang short of the ACC addding OU with Texas.

As ESPN themselves have said, value isn't based upon what have you done over the past decade or so. So your attempt to get equivalent value falls short, imho. We already know that in terms of the state of Florida the two most popular teams are the Gators and the Noles with the Gators ahead. Having Miami helps to even that out for the ACC. To take FSU out of the ACC means the ACC basically loses the state of Florida, even though Miami remains. Also, taking the most popular football team from the state of Virginia out of the ACC only does further damage. How does ESPN gain with the ACC by adding the state of Texas but losing its strongest presence in the states of Florida and Virginia?

ESPN has two basically exclusive properties - the SEC and the ACC. They have done more than enough in terms of the SEC to keep them happy through the next two decades. The SEC isn't going anywhere. If anything, I believe that when the next SEC national contract is up (which will end prior to the other stuff), the CBS part of their contract could likely become an exclusive ABC contract. But that's a ways off so that is certainly subject to change and probably more dependent upon what happens with the upcoming B1G Tier 1 contract, Texas, and ND prior to then.

After their love affair with the SEC (and well earned on the SEC's part) and owning the ACC (which was coveted by ESPN for its basketball more so than its football) it is no secret that ESPN covets the single entities of Texas and ND. I think if they truly coveted OU, they would have made a similar deal with the Sooners as thye did the Longhorns. So I see OU as a nice to have for ESPN, but not a necessity.

With the Irish, ESPN basically now has ND for everything but Irish home football games (while securing 2 or 3 football away games due to the ACC scheduling agreement) and their hockey games. That may be enough for them, since apparently they are unwilling to give ND the same guarantee that NBC does of televising every single home game on ABC. At least that is what I assume the stumbling block to be in getting the ND home football games contract.

In Texas, they have joint rights of the Tier 1 football games (with FOX) and then they have exclusive rights with LHN. Last year, Texas vs Oklahoma was on ABC at noon and Texas at KState on ESPN also at noon were the only two Texas games that were broadcast on ABC/ESPN. ISU at Texas and North Texas at Texas were the two LHN broadcasts. The previous year was only slightly better.

If they truly want to expand their inventory with Texas, I think we both agree that will only be achieved by either getting Texas into the SEC or in the ACC via full membership or an ND-type deal and converting the LHN contract into the equivalent of the ND NBC contract for home football games, but with Texas allowing for some of those games to be played on an ESPN/ESPN2 and an ACCN.

What the price would be for the ACC to get Texas either as a full member or as a partial with an ND type deal is unknown. And will the ACC be willing to paid whatever that price remains to be seen? I do know that they will strongly object to that price being both FSU and VT. How much their objections will influence the final outcome, if that is indeed part of the price, also remains to be seen.

Cheers,
Neil

Epic Applause
06-27-2015 01:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lenvillecards Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,458
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 376
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #28
Boren's rattling chains. What does that mean?
Miami & VT would be a more reasonable price. Anything involving removing FSU should be a none starter for the ACC.
06-27-2015 02:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #29
RE: Boren's rattling chains. What does that mean?
(06-27-2015 02:42 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Miami & VT would be a more reasonable price. Anything involving removing FSU should be a none starter for the ACC.

That's true from an ACC perspective. Virginia Tech would be fine. In the case of Miami I'm not sure the could find a ready home on their own today. That's why N.C. State was kicked around so much. However UNC unwillingness to give up a pair of their 6 member voting block (7 when Clemson usually votes with them), which would bring true democracy to the ACC decision making, is the real reason that F.S.U. is unhappy and might be a candidate to leave under such circumstances.
06-27-2015 03:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lenvillecards Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,458
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 376
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #30
Boren's rattling chains. What does that mean?
(06-27-2015 03:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-27-2015 02:42 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Miami & VT would be a more reasonable price. Anything involving removing FSU should be a none starter for the ACC.

That's true from an ACC perspective. Virginia Tech would be fine. In the case of Miami I'm not sure the could find a ready home on their own today. That's why N.C. State was kicked around so much. However UNC unwillingness to give up a pair of their 6 member voting block (7 when Clemson usually votes with them), which would bring true democracy to the ACC decision making, is the real reason that F.S.U. is unhappy and might be a candidate to leave under such circumstances.

If FSU were to leave the ACC I would hope that it would be to create a new conference.

FSU, Clemson, GT, VT, ND, Miami, Louisville, Texas, Oklahoma, Okl St, TT, TCU, WV & Baylor perhaps.
06-27-2015 07:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #31
RE: Boren's rattling chains. What does that mean?
(06-27-2015 07:12 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  
(06-27-2015 03:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-27-2015 02:42 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Miami & VT would be a more reasonable price. Anything involving removing FSU should be a none starter for the ACC.

That's true from an ACC perspective. Virginia Tech would be fine. In the case of Miami I'm not sure the could find a ready home on their own today. That's why N.C. State was kicked around so much. However UNC unwillingness to give up a pair of their 6 member voting block (7 when Clemson usually votes with them), which would bring true democracy to the ACC decision making, is the real reason that F.S.U. is unhappy and might be a candidate to leave under such circumstances.

If FSU were to leave the ACC I would hope that it would be to create a new conference.

FSU, Clemson, GT, VT, ND, Miami, Louisville, Texas, Oklahoma, Okl St, TT, TCU, WV & Baylor perhaps.

The point that I have tried to make about the ACC is that 5 years ago ESPN was trying to work things out for Texas to be able to leave the crumbling Big 12 and make a move to the ACC. I think they would have been able to do that as an independent alone, or as a full member if they brought friends. It was believed that a Western 1/2 division (pod) would have been enough to land them. But there were two problems with this. One was the SEC had long pursued Texas and should ESPN facilitate their move to the ACC there would be some damage to the relationship between ESPN and the SEC (granted not enough to do major damage but some mistrust would have ensued). So, second, ESPN vetted the idea of Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC to smooth the feelings for everyone. With those two states the estimated payout of the SECN would have hit 45 million fairly quickly so with A&M and Missouri the SEC was happy to be done and over the need to have Oklahoma and Texas. However fear arose in Chapel Hill. If they lost Virginia Tech and N.C. State then they lose two of their 6 votes (sometimes 7 with Clemson) with which they have maintained control of the conference. Texas with 3 buddies would be 4 votes. Notre Dame should they ever fully join with B.C., Syracuse, and Pitt would be 4 votes. Miami, Florida State, and Georgia Tech with sometimes Clemson would be another 4 votes and North Carolina would find themselves having to form new coalitions to get what they wanted passed. So Texas and friends became a no go. That meant that what the SEC was offered was back off the table and Oklahoma confused in all of this signed their T3 deal with FOX and Texas decided with ESPN's money in their back pocket for the LHN to forgo moving and try to stabilize the Big 12. The stalemate began. Now the Sooners may want to break that. But what had been worked out previously is now all off the board so who knows. But the ACC would be stable now and with a network, the NCAA would have a champs only P4, and everyone would be settling in had it not been for Chapel Hill and their unrelenting selfishness and shortsightedness.
06-27-2015 07:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lenvillecards Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,458
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 376
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #32
Boren's rattling chains. What does that mean?
(06-27-2015 07:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-27-2015 07:12 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  
(06-27-2015 03:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-27-2015 02:42 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Miami & VT would be a more reasonable price. Anything involving removing FSU should be a none starter for the ACC.

That's true from an ACC perspective. Virginia Tech would be fine. In the case of Miami I'm not sure the could find a ready home on their own today. That's why N.C. State was kicked around so much. However UNC unwillingness to give up a pair of their 6 member voting block (7 when Clemson usually votes with them), which would bring true democracy to the ACC decision making, is the real reason that F.S.U. is unhappy and might be a candidate to leave under such circumstances.

If FSU were to leave the ACC I would hope that it would be to create a new conference.

FSU, Clemson, GT, VT, ND, Miami, Louisville, Texas, Oklahoma, Okl St, TT, TCU, WV & Baylor perhaps.

The point that I have tried to make about the ACC is that 5 years ago ESPN was trying to work things out for Texas to be able to leave the crumbling Big 12 and make a move to the ACC. I think they would have been able to do that as an independent alone, or as a full member if they brought friends. It was believed that a Western 1/2 division (pod) would have been enough to land them. But there were two problems with this. One was the SEC had long pursued Texas and should ESPN facilitate their move to the ACC there would be some damage to the relationship between ESPN and the SEC (granted not enough to do major damage but some mistrust would have ensued). So, second, ESPN vetted the idea of Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC to smooth the feelings for everyone. With those two states the estimated payout of the SECN would have hit 45 million fairly quickly so with A&M and Missouri the SEC was happy to be done and over the need to have Oklahoma and Texas. However fear arose in Chapel Hill. If they lost Virginia Tech and N.C. State then they lose two of their 6 votes (sometimes 7 with Clemson) with which they have maintained control of the conference. Texas with 3 buddies would be 4 votes. Notre Dame should they ever fully join with B.C., Syracuse, and Pitt would be 4 votes. Miami, Florida State, and Georgia Tech with sometimes Clemson would be another 4 votes and North Carolina would find themselves having to form new coalitions to get what they wanted passed. So Texas and friends became a no go. That meant that what the SEC was offered was back off the table and Oklahoma confused in all of this signed their T3 deal with FOX and Texas decided with ESPN's money in their back pocket for the LHN to forgo moving and try to stabilize the Big 12. The stalemate began. Now the Sooners may want to break that. But what had been worked out previously is now all off the board so who knows. But the ACC would be stable now and with a network, the NCAA would have a champs only P4, and everyone would be settling in had it not been for Chapel Hill and their unrelenting selfishness and shortsightedness.

Agreed. How does Louisville presence affect this situation? Where does Louisville fall in the voting blocks?
(This post was last modified: 06-27-2015 08:17 PM by Lenvillecards.)
06-27-2015 08:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #33
RE: Boren's rattling chains. What does that mean?
(06-27-2015 08:15 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  
(06-27-2015 07:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-27-2015 07:12 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  
(06-27-2015 03:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-27-2015 02:42 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Miami & VT would be a more reasonable price. Anything involving removing FSU should be a none starter for the ACC.

That's true from an ACC perspective. Virginia Tech would be fine. In the case of Miami I'm not sure the could find a ready home on their own today. That's why N.C. State was kicked around so much. However UNC unwillingness to give up a pair of their 6 member voting block (7 when Clemson usually votes with them), which would bring true democracy to the ACC decision making, is the real reason that F.S.U. is unhappy and might be a candidate to leave under such circumstances.

If FSU were to leave the ACC I would hope that it would be to create a new conference.

FSU, Clemson, GT, VT, ND, Miami, Louisville, Texas, Oklahoma, Okl St, TT, TCU, WV & Baylor perhaps.

The point that I have tried to make about the ACC is that 5 years ago ESPN was trying to work things out for Texas to be able to leave the crumbling Big 12 and make a move to the ACC. I think they would have been able to do that as an independent alone, or as a full member if they brought friends. It was believed that a Western 1/2 division (pod) would have been enough to land them. But there were two problems with this. One was the SEC had long pursued Texas and should ESPN facilitate their move to the ACC there would be some damage to the relationship between ESPN and the SEC (granted not enough to do major damage but some mistrust would have ensued). So, second, ESPN vetted the idea of Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC to smooth the feelings for everyone. With those two states the estimated payout of the SECN would have hit 45 million fairly quickly so with A&M and Missouri the SEC was happy to be done and over the need to have Oklahoma and Texas. However fear arose in Chapel Hill. If they lost Virginia Tech and N.C. State then they lose two of their 6 votes (sometimes 7 with Clemson) with which they have maintained control of the conference. Texas with 3 buddies would be 4 votes. Notre Dame should they ever fully join with B.C., Syracuse, and Pitt would be 4 votes. Miami, Florida State, and Georgia Tech with sometimes Clemson would be another 4 votes and North Carolina would find themselves having to form new coalitions to get what they wanted passed. So Texas and friends became a no go. That meant that what the SEC was offered was back off the table and Oklahoma confused in all of this signed their T3 deal with FOX and Texas decided with ESPN's money in their back pocket for the LHN to forgo moving and try to stabilize the Big 12. The stalemate began. Now the Sooners may want to break that. But what had been worked out previously is now all off the board so who knows. But the ACC would be stable now and with a network, the NCAA would have a champs only P4, and everyone would be settling in had it not been for Chapel Hill and their unrelenting selfishness and shortsightedness.

Agreed. How does Louisville presence affect this situation? Where does Louisville fall in the voting blocks?

I hope they would just vote their own interest and what they thought was best for the ACC which is what is most helpful to any democratic system. You listen to the opinions of others and all sides of the issue. You stay as informed as possible and then vote for that which both aids your position and that of your conference at the same time. That's healthy. Collecting a clique of cohorts who make sure nobody else has a real say isn't.
06-27-2015 08:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jhawkmvp Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 443
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 35
I Root For: Kansas
Location: Over the Rainbow
Post: #34
RE: Boren's rattling chains. What does that mean?
(06-27-2015 01:06 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(06-27-2015 11:54 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  
(06-26-2015 09:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Jayhawkmvp, the PAC is not going to gain favors until they sell part interest in their network. I don't think they will expand again until they do. Therefore they are not a factor in further realignment as is unless they take leftovers.

They would be foolish not to try and selling a piece of their network could be part of their pitch. They are in a weak position and have few cards to play, put they will still play the cards they can. They have too. There are some quietly unhappy schools in the PAC with the revenue they are receiving right now.

Landthieves has really swung to the SEC right now. They want out to any of the PAC, B!G, or SEC, but the SEC has really gained momentum there.

The SEC has always been the favored landing spot there. What you are seeing over there right now is a mini invasion by a couple of heavily posting Longhorn guys. They both post heavily on other Longhorn sites so they are pushing a common theme. Some Longhorn fans want to see Oklahoma go to the SEC because the combo of Texas A&M with Oklahoma is enough to pull Texas to the SEC in their opinion.

They might be right in that regard. I highly doubt Texas would want to see a rivalry build up between Oklahoma and The Aggies.

Thing is though, Boren is much like leadership of Maryland. His and other academia are going to heavily favor a Big Ten invite. The question is how strongly some boosters will influence him.

Perhaps, he is already under an NDA and those severely hamper the influence that big boosters can exert.

There is definitely a swell in the SEC direction. PAC has really fallen out of favor and some of the old PAC guys are in the SEC camp. That said I agree. It really doesn't matter. The BoR seems to have said fix the conference situation, not let's go to X conference. The timing of this statement and Boren's academic goals for OU point to the B1G and if it is the B1G (or PAC or even the ACC with UT) they would get behind that move quickly. They just want out. What they do not want is B12 expansion from the G5 or the status quo.

I am hoping it is OU and KU to the B1G and that they have worked things out that the GoR is not an obstacle or can be nullified and little brother politics will not interfere. The B1G is the best fit for KU and it has been the most logical move for KU since the news was leaked about OU and KU being vetted when RU/UMD were added. That said I'd be more than happy to head to another power conference as well if OU and/or UT, were heading there too. I just don't get too comfortable because OU (and the B1G/SEC too) would drop KU as a partner if UT decided at the last second to join OU and the new conference only wanted a 2 school expansion. I'd just hope in that situation they take all 3 and find a fourth later.
(This post was last modified: 06-27-2015 10:55 PM by jhawkmvp.)
06-27-2015 10:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CintiFan Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 386
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 45
I Root For: Ohio St./ Cinti
Location:
Post: #35
RE: Boren's rattling chains. What does that mean?
(06-27-2015 12:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-27-2015 12:42 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  
(06-27-2015 09:24 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-27-2015 02:17 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  Let me throw out one other possibility.

If you think the timing of Boren's comments are related to the BIG media negotiations, then why would the result be to build up the SECN by adding OU and FSU?

Wouldn't it make more sense that the BIG is telling ESPN that if it wants a larger share of BIG programming, it needs to help the BIG get to 16-18 teams?

The BIG would be telling ESPN that it wants to add Kansas and OU, but OU won't come without Texas. ESPN owns a chunk of the LHN, but the compromise might be adding Texas too, with the BTN buying out the LHN and saving ESPN's ass from further losses.

BIG gets what it wants, with KU, OU and UT to the BIG (with an 18th spot open for the highest bidder to the east). ESPN get what it wants - BIG media rights and an exit strategy from the LHN. Fox goes along for the ride, with a larger BTN network, and perhaps with ESPN as a junior partner in it.

Because Texas will go where they want to go and I seriously doubt they have any intentions of playing in the Big 10. For one it would alienate most of their T shirt fans and tick off a significant portion of their alumni base. Secondly, such a move would most assuredly solidify A&M's position within the state. I could see Texas in the PAC long before I could see them in the Big 10. Thirdly there isn't much in the Big 10 to multiply Oklahoma's value to ESPN and certainly not to multiply ESPN's lassoed product, Texas. They wouldn't get to play all of the top 5 Big 10 schools every year and the interest in those games would be tepid at best. And finally utilizing the timing of the Big 10's needs is just a way to strengthen OU's bargaining position with all other interested parties. Even if it were the SEC's TV negotiations as part of the timing they would still be seeking bids from the PAC & Big 10. Schools don't move in a vacuum. Finally do you think ESPN wants to give up majority of interest in college footballs top product and moneymaker to get a piece of a conference where their top product props up their competitor's profits??? Think again. Plus as long as Texas remains even remotely a possibility for the ACC then ESPN will continue to hold out hopes of eventually landing Notre Dame.

I don't think it's quite the open and shut case you present.

In an 18 team BIG, Texas would play Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa and Kansas every year. With divisions or pods, Texas would probably play one or two games a year against OSU, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State or Wisconsin. Texas would still be able to schedule out of conference games with Baylor, TCU or other regional teams, all of whom would bend over backwards to keep Texas on their schedule. That should appease the Tshirt crowd. Add the benefit of academics and CIC, and the BIG may look pretty good to Texas Administration and Regents too.

A&M's position is already solid. As long as they can field competitive teams in the SEC, they will get their fair share of recruits. I just don't see Texas following A&M to the SEC. Their pride won't allow it. PAC is an option but not the best because of the time zones. But playing Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa and Kansas, plus a couple of the BIG powers each year seems to me to be at least as, if not more, attractive than playing ACC teams when only FSU is the real powerhouse. Sure, they may get on ND's schedule once every few years, and can schedule ND as an OOC game, but a BIG Texas could do that anyway.

The stumbling block, as you say, is whether ESPN can be enticed to go along. Keeping a piece of BIG media rights, getting bought out of a long term bad deal for the LHN and potentially getting a piece of the BTN might do it. But think of the consequences of TX, OK and KU moving to the BIG - that means there is nowhere else for Notre Dame to go except the ACC. The fallout might well be ND finally joins the conference as a full member, making the ACC a stable long term conference - and making ESPN very happy indeed.

I've been around people who had to make conference decisions all of my life. It's strictly business, all angles considered, all contingencies hopefully imagined and explored, and then a bottom line decision. At no time did "pride" ever enter into it, ever! Texas is the most successful college sports brand ever when it comes to business. They didn't get there by salving their pride. They got there by using their leverage. Don't confuse leverage with pride. Texas will do ultimately what is in their best interest and nothing else. The Big 10 is not in their self interest. It's too far. Their donors and fans aren't interested. They culturally don't identify with the Big 10. Academics would be the only selling point for the B1G. It really is cut and dried.

Oklahoma on the other hand has more reason to consider the PAC and the Big 10. That's where the sales job has to be made by any conference that wants them. Geography and familiarity with old rivals is on the side of the SEC. Nebraska is on the side of the Big 10. Their desire to improve their academic standing is on the side of the Big 10 and the PAC. Having Colorado in the PAC helps slightly. OU is the swing state here. But people have it backwards when it comes to OU and UT. OU needs Texas not the other way around. OU will be more likely to do what Texas wants to do and that is the inertia that the Big 10, SEC, or PAC will have to overcome.

I don't recall much speculation that Texas was looking or is looking at the SEC other than a few recent message board posts. Texas thought about going PAC when realignment was hot a few years ago and now most speculation has them looking at either independence, like ND, or possibly creating a western pod for the ACC. Texas is a top notch academic institution, and from what I read, looks down on the SEC for both its academic reputation and its perceived tendency to play fast and loose with recruiting rules. Couple those with the animosity between Texas and A&M and I don't see how the SEC is Texas first, second or third preferred option if keeping the Big 12 intact is not viable. Call it pride, or whatever, but I just don't see them moving to the SEC if other options, including the BIG, are available.

Oklahoma has for several years been the suckling pig at Texas' teet, but I think Boren's comments clearly tell Texas that time is over. I think of it as more of a symbiotic relationship. Oklahoma thinks it needs Texas as a conference mate to continue recruiting in Texas. However, Texas really needs Oklahoma not to desert the Big 12 because without them, the Big 12 has no marquee game to sell to the networks. Without Oklahoma, the Big 12 conference schedule will be weaker, leaving the Big 12 even more challenged to place a team in the playoffs than they are now. Texas has to take an Oklahoma threat to leave seriously and begin finding a solution that keeps Oklahoma happy too. Thus far, the only 'plan' I see is either to hope the BIG and SEC carve up the ACC, pushing FSU, Clemson, Miami and GTech into the waiting arms of the Big 12 (not likely) or to add two more crappy teams to get back to 12 and a conference title game (not really a solution). A rules change to allow a conference title game seems likely to happen anyway, so why even think about adding two more crappy teams.

I think Boren's comments are a warning to Texas to either fix the conference (not really possible, in my view) or come up with an exit strategy and find a better conference to call home. If we look at existing conferences, I think the BIG is the best option.

However, my favorite realignment speculation would be an entirely different solution.
06-28-2015 01:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #36
RE: Boren's rattling chains. What does that mean?
(06-27-2015 01:42 PM)omniorange Wrote:  
(06-27-2015 12:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Neil I truly understand your line of reasoning here and I cannot deny that it has merit. But consider the moving parts and their value. Texas>Florida State. Right now T.C.U. and Baylor in football strength are both > Virginia Tech. Texas is the one with long standing relations with Notre Dame. Furthermore if T.C.U. and Baylor tag along the price to Texas would be full membership in the ACC, not some independent deal. There's your value added which exceeds value lost. You lose Florida State and you don't lose Florida. You pick up UT and at least T.C.U. and you gain virtually all of Texas. You lose Virginia Tech and you do not lose Virginia. It doesn't really matter who comes with Texas. Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Iowa State could just as easily work from an academic stand point and from a market standpoint would be better. But if football cache is to be replaced then the four I suggested would bring the biggest bang short of the ACC addding OU with Texas.

As ESPN themselves have said, value isn't based upon what have you done over the past decade or so. So your attempt to get equivalent value falls short, imho. We already know that in terms of the state of Florida the two most popular teams are the Gators and the Noles with the Gators ahead. Having Miami helps to even that out for the ACC. To take FSU out of the ACC means the ACC basically loses the state of Florida, even though Miami remains. Also, taking the most popular football team from the state of Virginia out of the ACC only does further damage. How does ESPN gain with the ACC by adding the state of Texas but losing its strongest presence in the states of Florida and Virginia?

ESPN has two basically exclusive properties - the SEC and the ACC. They have done more than enough in terms of the SEC to keep them happy through the next two decades. The SEC isn't going anywhere. If anything, I believe that when the next SEC national contract is up (which will end prior to the other stuff), the CBS part of their contract could likely become an exclusive ABC contract. But that's a ways off so that is certainly subject to change and probably more dependent upon what happens with the upcoming B1G Tier 1 contract, Texas, and ND prior to then.

After their love affair with the SEC (and well earned on the SEC's part) and owning the ACC (which was coveted by ESPN for its basketball more so than its football) it is no secret that ESPN covets the single entities of Texas and ND. I think if they truly coveted OU, they would have made a similar deal with the Sooners as thye did the Longhorns. So I see OU as a nice to have for ESPN, but not a necessity.

With the Irish, ESPN basically now has ND for everything but Irish home football games (while securing 2 or 3 football away games due to the ACC scheduling agreement) and their hockey games. That may be enough for them, since apparently they are unwilling to give ND the same guarantee that NBC does of televising every single home game on ABC. At least that is what I assume the stumbling block to be in getting the ND home football games contract.

In Texas, they have joint rights of the Tier 1 football games (with FOX) and then they have exclusive rights with LHN. Last year, Texas vs Oklahoma was on ABC at noon and Texas at KState on ESPN also at noon were the only two Texas games that were broadcast on ABC/ESPN. ISU at Texas and North Texas at Texas were the two LHN broadcasts. The previous year was only slightly better.

If they truly want to expand their inventory with Texas, I think we both agree that will only be achieved by either getting Texas into the SEC or in the ACC via full membership or an ND-type deal and converting the LHN contract into the equivalent of the ND NBC contract for home football games, but with Texas allowing for some of those games to be played on an ESPN/ESPN2 and an ACCN.

What the price would be for the ACC to get Texas either as a full member or as a partial with an ND type deal is unknown. And will the ACC be willing to paid whatever that price remains to be seen? I do know that they will strongly object to that price being both FSU and VT. How much their objections will influence the final outcome, if that is indeed part of the price, also remains to be seen.

Cheers,
Neil

I don't think that price will come in the form of a current conference member or members, but in money and television exposure.
The only option for Texas to the ACC scenario TODAY; is as a partial member. They could receive the same 5 game package as the Irish. And since there are only 14 teams to rotate, every third year the Longhorns and Irish could play a scheduled "conference" game. The real price for the ACC would be the willingness to select either Texas or Notre Dame to play in the conference championship game after only playing 5/6 conference games.
I would imagine you would see a renewal of the Texas/A&M game as part of the SEC/ACC rivalry series too.
06-28-2015 02:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #37
RE: Boren's rattling chains. What does that mean?
(06-28-2015 02:05 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(06-27-2015 01:42 PM)omniorange Wrote:  
(06-27-2015 12:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Neil I truly understand your line of reasoning here and I cannot deny that it has merit. But consider the moving parts and their value. Texas>Florida State. Right now T.C.U. and Baylor in football strength are both > Virginia Tech. Texas is the one with long standing relations with Notre Dame. Furthermore if T.C.U. and Baylor tag along the price to Texas would be full membership in the ACC, not some independent deal. There's your value added which exceeds value lost. You lose Florida State and you don't lose Florida. You pick up UT and at least T.C.U. and you gain virtually all of Texas. You lose Virginia Tech and you do not lose Virginia. It doesn't really matter who comes with Texas. Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Iowa State could just as easily work from an academic stand point and from a market standpoint would be better. But if football cache is to be replaced then the four I suggested would bring the biggest bang short of the ACC addding OU with Texas.

As ESPN themselves have said, value isn't based upon what have you done over the past decade or so. So your attempt to get equivalent value falls short, imho. We already know that in terms of the state of Florida the two most popular teams are the Gators and the Noles with the Gators ahead. Having Miami helps to even that out for the ACC. To take FSU out of the ACC means the ACC basically loses the state of Florida, even though Miami remains. Also, taking the most popular football team from the state of Virginia out of the ACC only does further damage. How does ESPN gain with the ACC by adding the state of Texas but losing its strongest presence in the states of Florida and Virginia?

ESPN has two basically exclusive properties - the SEC and the ACC. They have done more than enough in terms of the SEC to keep them happy through the next two decades. The SEC isn't going anywhere. If anything, I believe that when the next SEC national contract is up (which will end prior to the other stuff), the CBS part of their contract could likely become an exclusive ABC contract. But that's a ways off so that is certainly subject to change and probably more dependent upon what happens with the upcoming B1G Tier 1 contract, Texas, and ND prior to then.

After their love affair with the SEC (and well earned on the SEC's part) and owning the ACC (which was coveted by ESPN for its basketball more so than its football) it is no secret that ESPN covets the single entities of Texas and ND. I think if they truly coveted OU, they would have made a similar deal with the Sooners as thye did the Longhorns. So I see OU as a nice to have for ESPN, but not a necessity.

With the Irish, ESPN basically now has ND for everything but Irish home football games (while securing 2 or 3 football away games due to the ACC scheduling agreement) and their hockey games. That may be enough for them, since apparently they are unwilling to give ND the same guarantee that NBC does of televising every single home game on ABC. At least that is what I assume the stumbling block to be in getting the ND home football games contract.

In Texas, they have joint rights of the Tier 1 football games (with FOX) and then they have exclusive rights with LHN. Last year, Texas vs Oklahoma was on ABC at noon and Texas at KState on ESPN also at noon were the only two Texas games that were broadcast on ABC/ESPN. ISU at Texas and North Texas at Texas were the two LHN broadcasts. The previous year was only slightly better.

If they truly want to expand their inventory with Texas, I think we both agree that will only be achieved by either getting Texas into the SEC or in the ACC via full membership or an ND-type deal and converting the LHN contract into the equivalent of the ND NBC contract for home football games, but with Texas allowing for some of those games to be played on an ESPN/ESPN2 and an ACCN.

What the price would be for the ACC to get Texas either as a full member or as a partial with an ND type deal is unknown. And will the ACC be willing to paid whatever that price remains to be seen? I do know that they will strongly object to that price being both FSU and VT. How much their objections will influence the final outcome, if that is indeed part of the price, also remains to be seen.

Cheers,
Neil

I don't think that price will come in the form of a current conference member or members, but in money and television exposure.
The only option for Texas to the ACC scenario TODAY; is as a partial member. They could receive the same 5 game package as the Irish. And since there are only 14 teams to rotate, every third year the Longhorns and Irish could play a scheduled "conference" game. The real price for the ACC would be the willingness to select either Texas or Notre Dame to play in the conference championship game after only playing 5/6 conference games.
I would imagine you would see a renewal of the Texas/A&M game as part of the SEC/ACC rivalry series too.

Texas and Notre Dame will be giving up the option of playing in future conference tournaments of the ACC. Why would they do that? Their brands are strong enough that they could easily slip into a six team or eight team national tournament with a strong enough 12 game record. That is all the assurance they need. There is a lot of reward to taking part in a conference championship/tournament in football but there is also risk involved. For some programs, its a proving ground that they are worthy. For other programs, there is more perceived risk involved with losing in those kinds of games.

My personal opinion is that Texas would end up negotiated into a six game agreement because they would be bringing another program with them. My guess is they bring Baylor and they are given a yearly match up with Baylor which is the sixth game of the deal.
06-28-2015 02:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
omniorange Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,144
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 251
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:

Donators
Post: #38
RE: Boren's rattling chains. What does that mean?
(06-28-2015 02:05 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(06-27-2015 01:42 PM)omniorange Wrote:  
(06-27-2015 12:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Neil I truly understand your line of reasoning here and I cannot deny that it has merit. But consider the moving parts and their value. Texas>Florida State. Right now T.C.U. and Baylor in football strength are both > Virginia Tech. Texas is the one with long standing relations with Notre Dame. Furthermore if T.C.U. and Baylor tag along the price to Texas would be full membership in the ACC, not some independent deal. There's your value added which exceeds value lost. You lose Florida State and you don't lose Florida. You pick up UT and at least T.C.U. and you gain virtually all of Texas. You lose Virginia Tech and you do not lose Virginia. It doesn't really matter who comes with Texas. Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Iowa State could just as easily work from an academic stand point and from a market standpoint would be better. But if football cache is to be replaced then the four I suggested would bring the biggest bang short of the ACC addding OU with Texas.

As ESPN themselves have said, value isn't based upon what have you done over the past decade or so. So your attempt to get equivalent value falls short, imho. We already know that in terms of the state of Florida the two most popular teams are the Gators and the Noles with the Gators ahead. Having Miami helps to even that out for the ACC. To take FSU out of the ACC means the ACC basically loses the state of Florida, even though Miami remains. Also, taking the most popular football team from the state of Virginia out of the ACC only does further damage. How does ESPN gain with the ACC by adding the state of Texas but losing its strongest presence in the states of Florida and Virginia?

ESPN has two basically exclusive properties - the SEC and the ACC. They have done more than enough in terms of the SEC to keep them happy through the next two decades. The SEC isn't going anywhere. If anything, I believe that when the next SEC national contract is up (which will end prior to the other stuff), the CBS part of their contract could likely become an exclusive ABC contract. But that's a ways off so that is certainly subject to change and probably more dependent upon what happens with the upcoming B1G Tier 1 contract, Texas, and ND prior to then.

After their love affair with the SEC (and well earned on the SEC's part) and owning the ACC (which was coveted by ESPN for its basketball more so than its football) it is no secret that ESPN covets the single entities of Texas and ND. I think if they truly coveted OU, they would have made a similar deal with the Sooners as thye did the Longhorns. So I see OU as a nice to have for ESPN, but not a necessity.

With the Irish, ESPN basically now has ND for everything but Irish home football games (while securing 2 or 3 football away games due to the ACC scheduling agreement) and their hockey games. That may be enough for them, since apparently they are unwilling to give ND the same guarantee that NBC does of televising every single home game on ABC. At least that is what I assume the stumbling block to be in getting the ND home football games contract.

In Texas, they have joint rights of the Tier 1 football games (with FOX) and then they have exclusive rights with LHN. Last year, Texas vs Oklahoma was on ABC at noon and Texas at KState on ESPN also at noon were the only two Texas games that were broadcast on ABC/ESPN. ISU at Texas and North Texas at Texas were the two LHN broadcasts. The previous year was only slightly better.

If they truly want to expand their inventory with Texas, I think we both agree that will only be achieved by either getting Texas into the SEC or in the ACC via full membership or an ND-type deal and converting the LHN contract into the equivalent of the ND NBC contract for home football games, but with Texas allowing for some of those games to be played on an ESPN/ESPN2 and an ACCN.

What the price would be for the ACC to get Texas either as a full member or as a partial with an ND type deal is unknown. And will the ACC be willing to paid whatever that price remains to be seen? I do know that they will strongly object to that price being both FSU and VT. How much their objections will influence the final outcome, if that is indeed part of the price, also remains to be seen.

Cheers,
Neil

I don't think that price will come in the form of a current conference member or members, but in money and television exposure.
The only option for Texas to the ACC scenario TODAY; is as a partial member. They could receive the same 5 game package as the Irish. And since there are only 14 teams to rotate, every third year the Longhorns and Irish could play a scheduled "conference" game. The real price for the ACC would be the willingness to select either Texas or Notre Dame to play in the conference championship game after only playing 5/6 conference games.
I would imagine you would see a renewal of the Texas/A&M game as part of the SEC/ACC rivalry series too.

Bold #1 - Even assuming that they decide football independence is the best of several options available, does UT truly want to play 5 ACC teams annually?

ND did for exposure in the northeast, Florida, and Georgia. I don't think that Texas cares that much about the northeast.

Bold #2 - The only way I see this happening is, first UT needs to agree to the ND type deal. And then the league would need to go to three divisions (which may mean expansion to 15 full members) and then football championship tourney rules say that the three division winners and the highest rated team from ND, Texas, or a non-ACC division winner gets the open semi-final slot.

Not sure how the full members of the ACC would react to the possibility that ND or UT could be crowned the football champion while only playing a 5/8th schedule. Not even sure they would like it if it were increased to a 6/8th conference schedule.

Is this somewhat along the lines of what you were thinking when you wrote this?

Cheers,
Neil
06-28-2015 04:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #39
RE: Boren's rattling chains. What does that mean?
(06-28-2015 04:50 PM)omniorange Wrote:  
(06-28-2015 02:05 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(06-27-2015 01:42 PM)omniorange Wrote:  
(06-27-2015 12:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Neil I truly understand your line of reasoning here and I cannot deny that it has merit. But consider the moving parts and their value. Texas>Florida State. Right now T.C.U. and Baylor in football strength are both > Virginia Tech. Texas is the one with long standing relations with Notre Dame. Furthermore if T.C.U. and Baylor tag along the price to Texas would be full membership in the ACC, not some independent deal. There's your value added which exceeds value lost. You lose Florida State and you don't lose Florida. You pick up UT and at least T.C.U. and you gain virtually all of Texas. You lose Virginia Tech and you do not lose Virginia. It doesn't really matter who comes with Texas. Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Iowa State could just as easily work from an academic stand point and from a market standpoint would be better. But if football cache is to be replaced then the four I suggested would bring the biggest bang short of the ACC addding OU with Texas.

As ESPN themselves have said, value isn't based upon what have you done over the past decade or so. So your attempt to get equivalent value falls short, imho. We already know that in terms of the state of Florida the two most popular teams are the Gators and the Noles with the Gators ahead. Having Miami helps to even that out for the ACC. To take FSU out of the ACC means the ACC basically loses the state of Florida, even though Miami remains. Also, taking the most popular football team from the state of Virginia out of the ACC only does further damage. How does ESPN gain with the ACC by adding the state of Texas but losing its strongest presence in the states of Florida and Virginia?

ESPN has two basically exclusive properties - the SEC and the ACC. They have done more than enough in terms of the SEC to keep them happy through the next two decades. The SEC isn't going anywhere. If anything, I believe that when the next SEC national contract is up (which will end prior to the other stuff), the CBS part of their contract could likely become an exclusive ABC contract. But that's a ways off so that is certainly subject to change and probably more dependent upon what happens with the upcoming B1G Tier 1 contract, Texas, and ND prior to then.

After their love affair with the SEC (and well earned on the SEC's part) and owning the ACC (which was coveted by ESPN for its basketball more so than its football) it is no secret that ESPN covets the single entities of Texas and ND. I think if they truly coveted OU, they would have made a similar deal with the Sooners as thye did the Longhorns. So I see OU as a nice to have for ESPN, but not a necessity.

With the Irish, ESPN basically now has ND for everything but Irish home football games (while securing 2 or 3 football away games due to the ACC scheduling agreement) and their hockey games. That may be enough for them, since apparently they are unwilling to give ND the same guarantee that NBC does of televising every single home game on ABC. At least that is what I assume the stumbling block to be in getting the ND home football games contract.

In Texas, they have joint rights of the Tier 1 football games (with FOX) and then they have exclusive rights with LHN. Last year, Texas vs Oklahoma was on ABC at noon and Texas at KState on ESPN also at noon were the only two Texas games that were broadcast on ABC/ESPN. ISU at Texas and North Texas at Texas were the two LHN broadcasts. The previous year was only slightly better.

If they truly want to expand their inventory with Texas, I think we both agree that will only be achieved by either getting Texas into the SEC or in the ACC via full membership or an ND-type deal and converting the LHN contract into the equivalent of the ND NBC contract for home football games, but with Texas allowing for some of those games to be played on an ESPN/ESPN2 and an ACCN.

What the price would be for the ACC to get Texas either as a full member or as a partial with an ND type deal is unknown. And will the ACC be willing to paid whatever that price remains to be seen? I do know that they will strongly object to that price being both FSU and VT. How much their objections will influence the final outcome, if that is indeed part of the price, also remains to be seen.

Cheers,
Neil

I don't think that price will come in the form of a current conference member or members, but in money and television exposure.
The only option for Texas to the ACC scenario TODAY; is as a partial member. They could receive the same 5 game package as the Irish. And since there are only 14 teams to rotate, every third year the Longhorns and Irish could play a scheduled "conference" game. The real price for the ACC would be the willingness to select either Texas or Notre Dame to play in the conference championship game after only playing 5/6 conference games.
I would imagine you would see a renewal of the Texas/A&M game as part of the SEC/ACC rivalry series too.

Bold #1 - Even assuming that they decide football independence is the best of several options available, does UT truly want to play 5 ACC teams annually?

ND did for exposure in the northeast, Florida, and Georgia. I don't think that Texas cares that much about the northeast.

Bold #2 - The only way I see this happening is, first UT needs to agree to the ND type deal. And then the league would need to go to three divisions (which may mean expansion to 15 full members) and then football championship tourney rules say that the three division winners and the highest rated team from ND, Texas, or a non-ACC division winner gets the open semi-final slot.

Not sure how the full members of the ACC would react to the possibility that ND or UT could be crowned the football champion while only playing a 5/8th schedule. Not even sure they would like it if it were increased to a 6/8th conference schedule.

Is this somewhat along the lines of what you were thinking when you wrote this?

Cheers,
Neil

Interesting solution. With true deregulation, the ACC absolutely could bring in ND or Texas in a wild card spot if they only had three divisions and four spots in a conference tournament.
06-28-2015 06:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #40
RE: Boren's rattling chains. What does that mean?
So does anyone care to hazard a guess as to when things pop? I'd say if it happens this year there is a very safe bet that it has to be done prior to August 15th, so anytime in the next six weeks. If not it will be a few years.
(This post was last modified: 06-28-2015 06:54 PM by JRsec.)
06-28-2015 06:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.