(02-14-2016 10:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 02:20 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 01:57 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 01:30 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  JR, I think you're a little too short sighted.

Cable is not dead yet and for the next 10 years expanding into new territories will still be important. Matchups provide the highlights, but they supply a small minority of the games for the conference networks.

I think you're putting too much importance on match-ups. Let me give you a hypothetical to think about. Let's say the B1G had added Oklahoma instead of Rutgers. Would the B1G be better off? The B1G would clearly be getting one of the greatest match-ups, re-starting the Oklahoma-Nebraska thanksgiving day game. And there would probably be a couple other Oklahoma must-see games against maybe Michigan or Ohio State. But would the value created by those few games be as great and the value, publicity and exposure (media and recruiting-wise) that the B1G gained by adding Rutgers and a presence in the NY/NJ area? I don't think so. You may think of it in terms of what Rutgers brings (maybe a match-up with Penn State), and certainly the B1G's expectations are that Rutgers will improve and be competitive in the major sports. But Delaney thinks of it in terms of all the B1G alumni in the NY metro area who will be excited to see B1G games and media coverage in their area, the massive number of Rutgers alumni to add to the B1G, the media coverage in a top market and the recruiting exposure in NY and NJ.

The B1G wants large state schools because they have huge alumni followings and large fan bases. Whether it's a cable model, a subscription model or even streaming for free with advertisers footing the bill, the goal is getting as many viewers as possible. Marquis match-ups help but not as much as large, loyal fanbases who will tune in even if their favorite team is playing the worst team in the conference. That's why the SECN will always be profitable as well.

You're wrong about Georgia Tech. Atlanta is not really a deep south city anymore. It is one of the most cosmopolitan southern cities, with a very diverse population, including lots of B1G alumni. It would put the B1G in the heart of one of the top recruiting areas. GT would be a great fit for the B1G. It is one of the top engineering schools in the US, as are Illinois, Purdue, Michigan and Wisconsin, and GT would love to collaborate with them through the CIC. I think Georgia Tech's administration would jump at the chance to join the B1G. So what's not to like from the B1G perspective?

You're right about FSU, though. Florida is such a big state and FSU such a premier program, that overall it would be a better add for the SEC than NC State. But it's the exception. I would be surprised if the SEC chose Clemson over NC State or VTech. Yes Clemson is a would be better to have than South Carolina, at least at this point, but will Clemson continue to be the pre-eminent program in SC after Dabo gets lured away by another school? Or will SC's membership in the SEC pull in recruits over Clemson as long as SC has a good program and good coach? Match-ups can be a fleeting thing, but conference memberships are not.

A gentlemen's bet if I may. I understand your rationale. Obviously I don't agree. But neither do I think you to be off base. We just have two different perspectives. So here's the bet. I bet you that when realignment is concluded that both the Big 10 and SEC will add schools that complete, or consolidate their footprints whether some of those schools come from markets they have already penetrated or not. I think both will prefer brands. If they are brands that add markets then great. And I think that both conferences will look for cultural fits and that both will abhor outliers.

No money or rep involved, just my sincere opinion against yours. A simple acknowledgement is all that will be required to be made to whoever proves to be the most accurate in their assessment.

I would accept your wager, if I could recognize what winning and losing looks like.

The B1G really has about only 7-8 targets: Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas to the West and UVA, UNC, Duke, GTech and maybe FSU to the East. They all fit the B1G profile of large flagship schools with AAU status in new areas, except that the B1G may offer (i) OU, notwithstanding the AAU requirement because of its blue-blood status and importance to Nebraska and (ii) Duke, notwithstanding the overlap in NC, because of its extraordinary academic profile. FSU would be an exception to the AAU requirement as well. I think all of them would be the kind of schools you describe, so I would agree the B1G is looking for those types of schools. In fact, it could be said that the B1G was looking for 'brands' all along by looking at factors, such as flagship status and top notch research, that give a school 'brand' status.

The SEC side offers more of a bet. The SEC wants the same schools, except perhaps Kansas, and would also take VT, NC State and presumably Clemson. VT and NC State fill out the SEC geographically, but I would say they are not 'brands' to the same degree as UVA and UNC. If the SEC opted to take Clemson and FSU instead of VT and NC State, then I'd say you are correct and I am wrong because the SEC chose to double up rather than take new territory.

Quit trying to reshape my position please. But I will clarify it for you. Georgia Tech and Florida State are out of my list for the Big 10. Tech is an outlier and the Big 10 Alumni base in Atlanta is real but over hyped for these purposes. Auburn has the third largest alumni base in Atlanta behind Georgia and Tech and our alumni numbers there would not represent a statistically profitable number to make a move if we were as remote as Big 10 schools. Florida State is way way down the AAU pecking order from even Oklahoma who would be the lowest rated research institution in the Big 10 should they join.

Secondly, if the Big 10 moves to 18 or even 20, the SEC will as well (at least to 18). If the Big 10 lands Duke, North Carolina and Virginia, then my position says they make a play for Notre Dame, and settle for Syracuse. Syracuse is no worse in research than Nebraska and they too are former AAU members. The SEC would take N.C. State and Virginia Tech to get into two large state markets and Virginia Tech is a regional brand which has the third best attendance in the ACC behind Clemson and Florida State. The point you can't seem to get through your head is that in that scenario the SEC would also take Florida State and Clemson to solidify their brand within the Southeast, and to add the content value of which I have spoken.

That is what my position is.

If the move is simply to 16 I could see Virginia Tech and Kansas to the Big 10, and Oklahoma and perhaps another Big 12 school.

But as of today I have greater doubts as to any kind of outcome involving the Big 12 schools. There is information coming out of Cincinnati that the Bearcasts and perhaps the Huskies will be invited to the Big 12 but at a reduced share of conference revenues in the 11 to 12 million a year range until 2025 (which btw is when the GOR expires).

This is the first time I've seen a rumor pertaining to Big 12 expansion where the details and the timing made sense. So I see this as possible. Should that occur then all of the eyes will be upon the ACC yet again. And waiting to see what happens to the East would be the wisest course of action the Big 12 could pursue.

Regarding the B1G, if UVa, UNC and Duke join, the 4th team will be Georgia Tech. You think it will be ND. I think ND remains independent and parks its other sports in a lesser conference and plays a large portion of its football schedule against B1G teams, including the former ACC teams. ND becomes the defacto OOC opponent of choice for B1G schools, much as it was before ND half joined the ACC. The Playoff Committee will never adopt a structure that doesn't allow ND, or for that matter, a powerful P5 team, to have a path to the championship. With a P4 structure, the conference champs may be the presumptive playoff teams, but I think for legal reasons, if not other reasons, a path for other schools remains.

I do think FSU is a bridge too far, both geographically and academically, for the B1G. I can't see Syracuse being the pick at all except as a last resort if all else fails, and if it gets to that point, the B1G just stops expanding. So that's clearly one difference between us. Georgia Tech vs. Syracuse as a B1G selection.

Regarding the SEC, I'm a bit confused by your position. If you think branding is more important that new geography, then your argument should be that if 16 is the number, the SEC will take the brands (FSU and Clemson) rather than the new geographies (VT and NC State). In that case, VT and NC State are added only if the new number is 18 and no other brands are available. Would, for example, the SEC in that scenario choose Oklahoma, a great brand but not as good a geography as VT or NC State, over one of the ACC teams? If you arguments are consistent, then you have to say yes to Oklahoma over either VT or NC State.

If the ACC largely survives, I can see your point about Kansas and VT to the B1G but only if Oklahoma is not available. I think in that scenario, the B1G would take Kansas and Oklahoma and patiently wait for UVA/UNC etc to potentially come available down the road. The B1G takes VT only if it is absolutely certain UVA will never be available. If only Kansas and VT are available, I think it's equally likely that the B1G does not expand at all.

(02-14-2016 11:37 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I'll make a prediction that if the Big 12 expands then there will be no further moves by the P5 until near the end of the GOR's. 2021 at the earliest.

You're probably right. A Big XII expansion means that the dysfunctional Big XII family is able to agree on both the concept of expansion and the candidates. Texas and Oklahoma would both have to be happy for that to happen. I don't think it will though.

After the Big XII meetings last week, it seems more certain than ever that the Big XII is going to implode at some point. Boren went public several months ago with his demands for expansion, a CCG and a conference network. Those kinds of decisions get made behind closed doors in quiet negotiations. Going public means that the private talks failed. It's a classic political move - bring the debate to the people, frame the debate by stating your position and let the weight of public opinion come to bear on your opponents to get them back to the negotiating table for a resolution. Boren was careful never to blame or shame Texas, instead specifically saying Texas financial interests had to be taken care of.

Instead of bringing the debate back to the table, the Big XII very publicly scolded Boren for raising the issues in the media. It was a personal insult to Boren and a slap in the face to Oklahoma and all of the boosters that supported him. The Commissioner tried to put a better face on it by saying the conference would 'study' the subject of expansion, but a 'study' is another classic political mechanism to basically kill an idea by studying it to death.

Normally governing bodies want to end any conference with at least an agreed upon statement to give some semblance that the meeting was productive and the group is moving forward on the same path. That didn't happen.

Boren left before the the Commissioner met the press. I think Boren is royally pissed off and when he tells the Oklahoma major donors the story they will be PO'd too if they are not already. It is amazing to me that the Big XII Commissioner and head of the Committee (from Kansas State) publicly humiliated Boren by scolding him. That's high political theater right there, and unheard of in polite academic circles.

(02-14-2016 01:26 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 10:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 02:20 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 01:57 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 01:30 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  JR, I think you're a little too short sighted.

Cable is not dead yet and for the next 10 years expanding into new territories will still be important. Matchups provide the highlights, but they supply a small minority of the games for the conference networks.

I think you're putting too much importance on match-ups. Let me give you a hypothetical to think about. Let's say the B1G had added Oklahoma instead of Rutgers. Would the B1G be better off? The B1G would clearly be getting one of the greatest match-ups, re-starting the Oklahoma-Nebraska thanksgiving day game. And there would probably be a couple other Oklahoma must-see games against maybe Michigan or Ohio State. But would the value created by those few games be as great and the value, publicity and exposure (media and recruiting-wise) that the B1G gained by adding Rutgers and a presence in the NY/NJ area? I don't think so. You may think of it in terms of what Rutgers brings (maybe a match-up with Penn State), and certainly the B1G's expectations are that Rutgers will improve and be competitive in the major sports. But Delaney thinks of it in terms of all the B1G alumni in the NY metro area who will be excited to see B1G games and media coverage in their area, the massive number of Rutgers alumni to add to the B1G, the media coverage in a top market and the recruiting exposure in NY and NJ.

The B1G wants large state schools because they have huge alumni followings and large fan bases. Whether it's a cable model, a subscription model or even streaming for free with advertisers footing the bill, the goal is getting as many viewers as possible. Marquis match-ups help but not as much as large, loyal fanbases who will tune in even if their favorite team is playing the worst team in the conference. That's why the SECN will always be profitable as well.

You're wrong about Georgia Tech. Atlanta is not really a deep south city anymore. It is one of the most cosmopolitan southern cities, with a very diverse population, including lots of B1G alumni. It would put the B1G in the heart of one of the top recruiting areas. GT would be a great fit for the B1G. It is one of the top engineering schools in the US, as are Illinois, Purdue, Michigan and Wisconsin, and GT would love to collaborate with them through the CIC. I think Georgia Tech's administration would jump at the chance to join the B1G. So what's not to like from the B1G perspective?

You're right about FSU, though. Florida is such a big state and FSU such a premier program, that overall it would be a better add for the SEC than NC State. But it's the exception. I would be surprised if the SEC chose Clemson over NC State or VTech. Yes Clemson is a would be better to have than South Carolina, at least at this point, but will Clemson continue to be the pre-eminent program in SC after Dabo gets lured away by another school? Or will SC's membership in the SEC pull in recruits over Clemson as long as SC has a good program and good coach? Match-ups can be a fleeting thing, but conference memberships are not.

A gentlemen's bet if I may. I understand your rationale. Obviously I don't agree. But neither do I think you to be off base. We just have two different perspectives. So here's the bet. I bet you that when realignment is concluded that both the Big 10 and SEC will add schools that complete, or consolidate their footprints whether some of those schools come from markets they have already penetrated or not. I think both will prefer brands. If they are brands that add markets then great. And I think that both conferences will look for cultural fits and that both will abhor outliers.

No money or rep involved, just my sincere opinion against yours. A simple acknowledgement is all that will be required to be made to whoever proves to be the most accurate in their assessment.

I would accept your wager, if I could recognize what winning and losing looks like.

The B1G really has about only 7-8 targets: Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas to the West and UVA, UNC, Duke, GTech and maybe FSU to the East. They all fit the B1G profile of large flagship schools with AAU status in new areas, except that the B1G may offer (i) OU, notwithstanding the AAU requirement because of its blue-blood status and importance to Nebraska and (ii) Duke, notwithstanding the overlap in NC, because of its extraordinary academic profile. FSU would be an exception to the AAU requirement as well. I think all of them would be the kind of schools you describe, so I would agree the B1G is looking for those types of schools. In fact, it could be said that the B1G was looking for 'brands' all along by looking at factors, such as flagship status and top notch research, that give a school 'brand' status.

The SEC side offers more of a bet. The SEC wants the same schools, except perhaps Kansas, and would also take VT, NC State and presumably Clemson. VT and NC State fill out the SEC geographically, but I would say they are not 'brands' to the same degree as UVA and UNC. If the SEC opted to take Clemson and FSU instead of VT and NC State, then I'd say you are correct and I am wrong because the SEC chose to double up rather than take new territory.

Quit trying to reshape my position please. But I will clarify it for you. Georgia Tech and Florida State are out of my list for the Big 10. Tech is an outlier and the Big 10 Alumni base in Atlanta is real but over hyped for these purposes. Auburn has the third largest alumni base in Atlanta behind Georgia and Tech and our alumni numbers there would not represent a statistically profitable number to make a move if we were as remote as Big 10 schools. Florida State is way way down the AAU pecking order from even Oklahoma who would be the lowest rated research institution in the Big 10 should they join.

Secondly, if the Big 10 moves to 18 or even 20, the SEC will as well (at least to 18). If the Big 10 lands Duke, North Carolina and Virginia, then my position says they make a play for Notre Dame, and settle for Syracuse. Syracuse is no worse in research than Nebraska and they too are former AAU members. The SEC would take N.C. State and Virginia Tech to get into two large state markets and Virginia Tech is a regional brand which has the third best attendance in the ACC behind Clemson and Florida State. The point you can't seem to get through your head is that in that scenario the SEC would also take Florida State and Clemson to solidify their brand within the Southeast, and to add the content value of which I have spoken.

That is what my position is.

If the move is simply to 16 I could see Virginia Tech and Kansas to the Big 10, and Oklahoma and perhaps another Big 12 school.

But as of today I have greater doubts as to any kind of outcome involving the Big 12 schools. There is information coming out of Cincinnati that the Bearcasts and perhaps the Huskies will be invited to the Big 12 but at a reduced share of conference revenues in the 11 to 12 million a year range until 2025 (which btw is when the GOR expires).

This is the first time I've seen a rumor pertaining to Big 12 expansion where the details and the timing made sense. So I see this as possible. Should that occur then all of the eyes will be upon the ACC yet again. And waiting to see what happens to the East would be the wisest course of action the Big 12 could pursue.

Regarding the B1G, if UVa, UNC and Duke join, the 4th team will be Georgia Tech. You think it will be ND. I think ND remains independent and parks its other sports in a lesser conference and plays a large portion of its football schedule against B1G teams, including the former ACC teams. ND becomes the defacto OOC opponent of choice for B1G schools, much as it was before ND half joined the ACC. The Playoff Committee will never adopt a structure that doesn't allow ND, or for that matter, a powerful P5 team, to have a path to the championship. With a P4 structure, the conference champs may be the presumptive playoff teams, but I think for legal reasons, if not other reasons, a path for other schools remains.

I do think FSU is a bridge too far, both geographically and academically, for the B1G. I can't see Syracuse being the pick at all except as a last resort if all else fails, and if it gets to that point, the B1G just stops expanding. So that's clearly one difference between us. Georgia Tech vs. Syracuse as a B1G selection.

Regarding the SEC, I'm a bit confused by your position. If you think branding is more important that new geography, then your argument should be that if 16 is the number, the SEC will take the brands (FSU and Clemson) rather than the new geographies (VT and NC State). In that case, VT and NC State are added only if the new number is 18 and no other brands are available. Would, for example, the SEC in that scenario choose Oklahoma, a great brand but not as good a geography as VT or NC State, over one of the ACC teams? If you arguments are consistent, then you have to say yes to Oklahoma over either VT or NC State.

If the ACC largely survives, I can see your point about Kansas and VT to the B1G but only if Oklahoma is not available. I think in that scenario, the B1G would take Kansas and Oklahoma and patiently wait for UVA/UNC etc to potentially come available down the road. The B1G takes VT only if it is absolutely certain UVA will never be available. If only Kansas and VT are available, I think it's equally likely that the B1G does not expand at all.

Can you read? I'm not the one that is confused here. I plainly said that if the Big 10 goes to 18 or 20 the SEC would at least move to 18 and would take N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Clemson and Florida State.

If Kansas and Va Tech went to the Big 10 in a move to 16, then Oklahoma and Florida State would be the picks down here as it would mean that Duke, Virginia and North Carolina were all staying put.

I didn't discuss a move to just 16 in the posts you replied to so I don't know how you came up with that.

Jr, you did discuss 16 and I was just responding to it. Here's a direct quote from your post:

If the move is simply to 16 I could see Virginia Tech and Kansas to the Big 10, and Oklahoma and perhaps another Big 12 school.

(02-14-2016 09:19 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  Jr, you did discuss 16 and I was just responding to it. Here's a direct quote from your post:

If the move is simply to 16 I could see Virginia Tech and Kansas to the Big 10, and Oklahoma and perhaps another Big 12 school.

That would be Oklahoma and another Big 12 school to the SEC. But in my last response it was pretty straight forward. However, if the ACC only lost Va Tech I think they would back fill with West Virginia and Connecticut and move to 16.

(02-14-2016 10:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  But as of today I have greater doubts as to any kind of outcome involving the Big 12 schools. There is information coming out of Cincinnati that the Bearcasts and perhaps the Huskies will be invited to the Big 12 but at a reduced share of conference revenues in the 11 to 12 million a year range until 2025 (which btw is when the GOR expires).

This is the first time I've seen a rumor pertaining to Big 12 expansion where the details and the timing made sense. So I see this as possible. Should that occur then all of the eyes will be upon the ACC yet again. And waiting to see what happens to the East would be the wisest course of action the Big 12 could pursue.

Speaking of Cincinnati...

Smoke coming out of UC

If the Big 12 expands with UC and UConn and then adds a championship game then what are the odds of the LHN being transformed into a Big 12 Network?

If that happens then perhaps the current Big 12 survives for the long haul?

So what about this?

Big Ten breaks for North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and Syracuse.

SEC takes Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, and dare I say Pittsburgh? Not sure Kentucky would want Louisville. Not sure Miami would really do anything for us. I throw GT in here because I do think the B1G might offer them and that we will need to give them a spot as a defensive move. The academics wouldn't be bad either.

West: Texas A&M, Missouri, Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss
South: Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
East: Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Kentucky
North: South Carolina, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh

Big 12 finishes it off with Miami and Louisville. Notre Dame affiliates with Big 12 and plays Texas annually.

(02-15-2016 09:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 10:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  But as of today I have greater doubts as to any kind of outcome involving the Big 12 schools. There is information coming out of Cincinnati that the Bearcasts and perhaps the Huskies will be invited to the Big 12 but at a reduced share of conference revenues in the 11 to 12 million a year range until 2025 (which btw is when the GOR expires).

This is the first time I've seen a rumor pertaining to Big 12 expansion where the details and the timing made sense. So I see this as possible. Should that occur then all of the eyes will be upon the ACC yet again. And waiting to see what happens to the East would be the wisest course of action the Big 12 could pursue.

Speaking of Cincinnati...

Smoke coming out of UC

If the Big 12 expands with UC and UConn and then adds a championship game then what are the odds of the LHN being transformed into a Big 12 Network?

If that happens then perhaps the current Big 12 survives for the long haul?

So what about this?

Big Ten breaks for North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and Syracuse.

SEC takes Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, and dare I say Pittsburgh? Not sure Kentucky would want Louisville. Not sure Miami would really do anything for us. I throw GT in here because I do think the B1G might offer them and that we will need to give them a spot as a defensive move. The academics wouldn't be bad either.

West: Texas A&M, Missouri, Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss
South: Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
East: Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Kentucky
North: South Carolina, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh

Big 12 finishes it off with Miami and Louisville. Notre Dame affiliates with Big 12 and plays Texas annually.

Stop and 18 and you have it.

(02-15-2016 10:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-15-2016 09:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 10:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  But as of today I have greater doubts as to any kind of outcome involving the Big 12 schools. There is information coming out of Cincinnati that the Bearcasts and perhaps the Huskies will be invited to the Big 12 but at a reduced share of conference revenues in the 11 to 12 million a year range until 2025 (which btw is when the GOR expires).

This is the first time I've seen a rumor pertaining to Big 12 expansion where the details and the timing made sense. So I see this as possible. Should that occur then all of the eyes will be upon the ACC yet again. And waiting to see what happens to the East would be the wisest course of action the Big 12 could pursue.

Speaking of Cincinnati...

Smoke coming out of UC

If the Big 12 expands with UC and UConn and then adds a championship game then what are the odds of the LHN being transformed into a Big 12 Network?

If that happens then perhaps the current Big 12 survives for the long haul?

So what about this?

Big Ten breaks for North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and Syracuse.

SEC takes Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, and dare I say Pittsburgh? Not sure Kentucky would want Louisville. Not sure Miami would really do anything for us. I throw GT in here because I do think the B1G might offer them and that we will need to give them a spot as a defensive move. The academics wouldn't be bad either.

West: Texas A&M, Missouri, Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss
South: Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
East: Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Kentucky
North: South Carolina, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh

Big 12 finishes it off with Miami and Louisville. Notre Dame affiliates with Big 12 and plays Texas annually.

Stop and 18 and you have it.

The question for me is does the B1G show interest in Georgia Tech? If so, does GT reciprocate? Well, I think if the SEC isn't willing to take GT then they might as well head for the B1G rather than the Big 12. The rumors a few years back had UVA and GT going to the B1G by themselves and while I don't see that as a likely move at all, it begs the question of GT's interests.

I don't think Notre Dame is going anywhere unless there's no longer a major conference willing to give them a sweet heart deal. Syracuse is good fall back for them in that scenario.

Of course, I still like 20 as opposed to 18 for a variety of reasons. Coming up with 4 schools each that the B1G and SEC would take is a bit of a puzzle. I don't see a solid 6 for the B1G, but I think there are numerous combos of 6 for the SEC.

I also have questions about how successfully UNC could uncouple from NC State given their legal relationship.

What do you think of these alignments for the SEC?

1) Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, NC State, and Florida State
2) Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, Clemson, and Florida State
3) Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, NC State, Clemson, and Florida State
4) Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech, Clemson, and Florida State

I do think there is somewhat of a likelihood that the core ACC schools would like to move together if possible. The SEC can offer the most spots.

Of course, VT, NC State, Clemson, and Florida State is a very solid grouping all the way around. GT is just an interesting piece for me.

What is the likelihood of a Big 12 Network?

A while back, I would have said zero, but if the league is expanding then certainly they think it is possible. Notwithstanding the poor decisions and leadership that the conference usually suffers from, I wouldn't think they'd be that dumb as to expand with no legitimate prospects at a network.

ESPN is really the only entity that could put it together. They already have the LHN and they certainly aren't going to let Texas get away easily. The problem is that FOX owns the 3rd Tier content of several Big 12 schools? Would they sell?

One might think that FOX would be unwilling to give up that sort of content, especially to ESPN, as the two are obviously competing against each other like never before. BUT...what if FOX would be willing to sell in order to guarantee the future of the Big 12? FOX needs 1st and 2nd Tier content more than they need 3rd Tier content. There's no reasonable chance FOX gets the rights to a Big 12 Network, but they probably don't want Big 12 schools to be separated between the B1G, PAC 12, and certainly not the SEC or ACC. They need the content of a major conference in order to compete with ESPN.

Yes, FOX has content from the PAC, but that isn't likely to be strengthened. They will probably gain some content from the Big Ten negotiations, but that would at best replace what they'd be losing in a dissolved Big 12. Would the value of OU and KU in the B1G really be worth more to them than the entire Big 12? I doubt it. They could have both.

So...let's say they sell the rights and ESPN transitions the LHN to a Big 12 Network which obviously saves on start-up costs. The studio in Dallas doesn't go to waste and there's a chance that when the ACC collapses that the Big 12 Network actually grows stronger with some decent content from that region of the country. It would be a lot cheaper than fronting the money for an ACC Network.

The SEC gains some property. The B1G gains some property that ESPN splits the cost of with FOX. Perhaps ESPN buys into the PAC 12 Networks. ESPN is set up with lots of content for the inevitable transition to streaming. FOX gets what they need to compete with ESPN on a more direct basis.

(02-16-2016 06:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  What is the likelihood of a Big 12 Network?

A while back, I would have said zero, but if the league is expanding then certainly they think it is possible. Notwithstanding the poor decisions and leadership that the conference usually suffers from, I wouldn't think they'd be that dumb as to expand with no legitimate prospects at a network.

ESPN is really the only entity that could put it together. They already have the LHN and they certainly aren't going to let Texas get away easily. The problem is that FOX owns the 3rd Tier content of several Big 12 schools? Would they sell?

One might think that FOX would be unwilling to give up that sort of content, especially to ESPN, as the two are obviously competing against each other like never before. BUT...what if FOX would be willing to sell in order to guarantee the future of the Big 12? FOX needs 1st and 2nd Tier content more than they need 3rd Tier content. There's no reasonable chance FOX gets the rights to a Big 12 Network, but they probably don't want Big 12 schools to be separated between the B1G, PAC 12, and certainly not the SEC or ACC. They need the content of a major conference in order to compete with ESPN.

Yes, FOX has content from the PAC, but that isn't likely to be strengthened. They will probably gain some content from the Big Ten negotiations, but that would at best replace what they'd be losing in a dissolved Big 12. Would the value of OU and KU in the B1G really be worth more to them than the entire Big 12? I doubt it. They could have both.

So...let's say they sell the rights and ESPN transitions the LHN to a Big 12 Network which obviously saves on start-up costs. The studio in Dallas doesn't go to waste and there's a chance that when the ACC collapses that the Big 12 Network actually grows stronger with some decent content from that region of the country. It would be a lot cheaper than fronting the money for an ACC Network.

The SEC gains some property. The B1G gains some property that ESPN splits the cost of with FOX. Perhaps ESPN buys into the PAC 12 Networks. ESPN is set up with lots of content for the inevitable transition to streaming. FOX gets what they need to compete with ESPN on a more direct basis.

1. FOX only has about 4 years to go on those T3 contracts.
2. Texas will get paid their 15 million a year until 2034 for the LHN. The question is how much would the existing and joining Big 12 schools chip in along with ESPN to make that transition to a B12N from a LHN?
3. If they add Cincinnati and another but do not extend the grant of rights then a network may not be forthcoming. If they expand and extend the existing GOR I think it is a good indication that they are getting that network. I could see them adding two solid schools now and waiting to see what happens with the ACC before adding more.
4. If the Big 10 added four from the ACC, the SEC added four from the ACC, and the Big 12 added four from the ACC that is enough to dissolve their conference.
In that scenario B.C., Wake Forest, and either Miami or Pitt get left out IMO.

So, Duke, Virginia, North Carolina, and Syracuse to the Big 10; Clemson, Florida State, N.C. State, and Virginia Tech to the SEC; Louisville, Miami, Pittsburgh, Georgia Tech to the Big 12; and Notre Dame most likely seeks an association with another conference. If the Big 12 wanted to go to 18 they could add B.C. & B.Y.U., or Connecticut.

(02-12-2016 02:36 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  It occurs to me that UNC and NC State may have a hard time uncoupling from each other. If the UNC Board was unwilling to allow NCSU to negotiate with the SEC then there may be a problem with UNC leaving NCSU behind on the other end. I could see UNC wanting to go to the B1G, but they will still fear NCSU in the SEC. It's also said that there is mutual interest between UNC and the SEC. If UNC heads to the SEC then NCSU could be left in an inferior position. Will the Board be able to get away with any of that? There is a simpler solution.

Why not this?

The SEC should take the Triangle to keep all those schools together and on the same footing. Virginia would likely come along. Then take Florida State and Clemson. That's 6 very solid programs with a lot of additional brand value. NC becomes unequivocal SEC country while the brands of FSU and Clemson are added for football content. UVA brings a new market and academics.

Virginia Tech is left for the B1G. They could also take Syracuse. If Oklahoma and Kansas become available then they have that option as well. I don't see a good 19 and 20 for the B1G though unless Notre Dame finally wanted in for some reason.

The Big 12 could easily rebuild with the like of Georgia Tech, Miami, Louisville, Pittsburgh, and an affiliation with Notre Dame.

SEC - 20
B1G - 16 or if OU/KU are available then 18
Big 12 - 14 or if OU/KU leave then 12 + ND

(02-16-2016 07:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 06:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  What is the likelihood of a Big 12 Network?

A while back, I would have said zero, but if the league is expanding then certainly they think it is possible. Notwithstanding the poor decisions and leadership that the conference usually suffers from, I wouldn't think they'd be that dumb as to expand with no legitimate prospects at a network.

ESPN is really the only entity that could put it together. They already have the LHN and they certainly aren't going to let Texas get away easily. The problem is that FOX owns the 3rd Tier content of several Big 12 schools? Would they sell?

One might think that FOX would be unwilling to give up that sort of content, especially to ESPN, as the two are obviously competing against each other like never before. BUT...what if FOX would be willing to sell in order to guarantee the future of the Big 12? FOX needs 1st and 2nd Tier content more than they need 3rd Tier content. There's no reasonable chance FOX gets the rights to a Big 12 Network, but they probably don't want Big 12 schools to be separated between the B1G, PAC 12, and certainly not the SEC or ACC. They need the content of a major conference in order to compete with ESPN.

Yes, FOX has content from the PAC, but that isn't likely to be strengthened. They will probably gain some content from the Big Ten negotiations, but that would at best replace what they'd be losing in a dissolved Big 12. Would the value of OU and KU in the B1G really be worth more to them than the entire Big 12? I doubt it. They could have both.

So...let's say they sell the rights and ESPN transitions the LHN to a Big 12 Network which obviously saves on start-up costs. The studio in Dallas doesn't go to waste and there's a chance that when the ACC collapses that the Big 12 Network actually grows stronger with some decent content from that region of the country. It would be a lot cheaper than fronting the money for an ACC Network.

The SEC gains some property. The B1G gains some property that ESPN splits the cost of with FOX. Perhaps ESPN buys into the PAC 12 Networks. ESPN is set up with lots of content for the inevitable transition to streaming. FOX gets what they need to compete with ESPN on a more direct basis.

1. FOX only has about 4 years to go on those T3 contracts.
2. Texas will get paid their 15 million a year until 2034 for the LHN. The question is how much would the existing and joining Big 12 schools chip in along with ESPN to make that transition to a B12N from a LHN?
3. If they add Cincinnati and another but do not extend the grant of rights then a network may not be forthcoming. If they expand and extend the existing GOR I think it is a good indication that they are getting that network. I could see them adding two solid schools now and waiting to see what happens with the ACC before adding more.
4. If the Big 10 added four from the ACC, the SEC added four from the ACC, and the Big 12 added four from the ACC that is enough to dissolve their conference.
In that scenario B.C., Wake Forest, and either Miami or Pitt get left out IMO.

So, Duke, Virginia, North Carolina, and Syracuse to the Big 10; Clemson, Florida State, N.C. State, and Virginia Tech to the SEC; Louisville, Miami, Pittsburgh, Georgia Tech to the Big 12; and Notre Dame most likely seeks an association with another conference. If the Big 12 wanted to go to 18 they could add B.C. & B.Y.U., or Connecticut.

I used to wonder why the B12 would want to expand with a couple of AAC schools now as opposed to waiting a couple of years for potential ACC leftovers. Then it occurred to me; leverage of a conference network. Any school leaving the ACC would have three options for a safe landing spot. This would make it easier for programs tied to "little brothers" to separate and go to different conferences knowing that both programs can find safe landing spots.

(02-16-2016 08:41 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 07:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 06:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  What is the likelihood of a Big 12 Network?

A while back, I would have said zero, but if the league is expanding then certainly they think it is possible. Notwithstanding the poor decisions and leadership that the conference usually suffers from, I wouldn't think they'd be that dumb as to expand with no legitimate prospects at a network.

ESPN is really the only entity that could put it together. They already have the LHN and they certainly aren't going to let Texas get away easily. The problem is that FOX owns the 3rd Tier content of several Big 12 schools? Would they sell?

One might think that FOX would be unwilling to give up that sort of content, especially to ESPN, as the two are obviously competing against each other like never before. BUT...what if FOX would be willing to sell in order to guarantee the future of the Big 12? FOX needs 1st and 2nd Tier content more than they need 3rd Tier content. There's no reasonable chance FOX gets the rights to a Big 12 Network, but they probably don't want Big 12 schools to be separated between the B1G, PAC 12, and certainly not the SEC or ACC. They need the content of a major conference in order to compete with ESPN.

Yes, FOX has content from the PAC, but that isn't likely to be strengthened. They will probably gain some content from the Big Ten negotiations, but that would at best replace what they'd be losing in a dissolved Big 12. Would the value of OU and KU in the B1G really be worth more to them than the entire Big 12? I doubt it. They could have both.

So...let's say they sell the rights and ESPN transitions the LHN to a Big 12 Network which obviously saves on start-up costs. The studio in Dallas doesn't go to waste and there's a chance that when the ACC collapses that the Big 12 Network actually grows stronger with some decent content from that region of the country. It would be a lot cheaper than fronting the money for an ACC Network.

The SEC gains some property. The B1G gains some property that ESPN splits the cost of with FOX. Perhaps ESPN buys into the PAC 12 Networks. ESPN is set up with lots of content for the inevitable transition to streaming. FOX gets what they need to compete with ESPN on a more direct basis.

1. FOX only has about 4 years to go on those T3 contracts.
2. Texas will get paid their 15 million a year until 2034 for the LHN. The question is how much would the existing and joining Big 12 schools chip in along with ESPN to make that transition to a B12N from a LHN?
3. If they add Cincinnati and another but do not extend the grant of rights then a network may not be forthcoming. If they expand and extend the existing GOR I think it is a good indication that they are getting that network. I could see them adding two solid schools now and waiting to see what happens with the ACC before adding more.
4. If the Big 10 added four from the ACC, the SEC added four from the ACC, and the Big 12 added four from the ACC that is enough to dissolve their conference.
In that scenario B.C., Wake Forest, and either Miami or Pitt get left out IMO.

So, Duke, Virginia, North Carolina, and Syracuse to the Big 10; Clemson, Florida State, N.C. State, and Virginia Tech to the SEC; Louisville, Miami, Pittsburgh, Georgia Tech to the Big 12; and Notre Dame most likely seeks an association with another conference. If the Big 12 wanted to go to 18 they could add B.C. & B.Y.U., or Connecticut.

I used to wonder why the B12 would want to expand with a couple of AAC schools now as opposed to waiting a couple of years for potential ACC leftovers. Then it occurred to me; leverage of a conference network. Any school leaving the ACC would have three options for a safe landing spot. This would make it easier for programs tied to "little brothers" to separate and go to different conferences knowing that both programs can find safe landing spots.

I think the Texas question is the key.

I ask myself, does UT have anything to gain my transitioning the LHN to a Big 12 Network and putting the league on a better footing for the future?

I. Texas doesn't really want to be in any other league. If the Big 12 doesn't survive in the long term then UT will have to find a less than ideal home. Why less than ideal?

-----------A. Texas is the most powerful program in the Big 12. They run the fiefdom so to speak. No other league will afford them this sort of power or influence. They would be the new guy. A wealthy new guy with a strong voice, but at best an equal partner.

-----------B. Texas wants to play local rivals. The other TX schools aren't particularly attractive to other leagues. UT has already lost A&M to another league and they will lose more local rivals if they themselves split.

II. Texas doesn't want to lose OU. The RRR would likely continue out of conference as it did for many decades before the two were in the same conference, but OU is the 2nd best draw in the league and there's no replacement for them. Losing OU would weaken the overall strength of the league irreparably. UT needs to give OU something they want.

III. The LHN makes good money for UT, but that's about it. UT doesn't have the Eastern exposure that they want. They don't have much exposure at all outside of TX which they didn't really need more of anyway. A Big 12 Network would afford UT the opportunity to market itself outside its region in a much more profound way. This is what conference networks have done for the Big Ten and the SEC. UT is losing out on that front. Especially if the Big 12 can gain a few ACC schools then UT stands to gain a great deal of additional exposure across the country.

IV. The opportunity to affiliate with Notre Dame. This was a dream of DeLoss Dodds, but the ACC was a much more natural fit for the Irish. If the ACC falls apart though then the Big 12 becomes much more attractive to ND. I could see them giving ND a nice sweetheart deal as long as they played Texas annually and probably had a few other concessions. If the Big 12 can capture a few nice Southern markets then the inclusion of the TX market itself may be enough to lure the Irish aboard.

Now the questions is would Texas give up it's guaranteed profits every year in exchange for becoming an equal partner in the Big 12 Network? Well, probably not, but I don't know that they would demand $15M a year either as long as they are getting the other benefits I listed above.

(02-16-2016 09:53 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 08:41 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 07:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 06:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  What is the likelihood of a Big 12 Network?

A while back, I would have said zero, but if the league is expanding then certainly they think it is possible. Notwithstanding the poor decisions and leadership that the conference usually suffers from, I wouldn't think they'd be that dumb as to expand with no legitimate prospects at a network.

ESPN is really the only entity that could put it together. They already have the LHN and they certainly aren't going to let Texas get away easily. The problem is that FOX owns the 3rd Tier content of several Big 12 schools? Would they sell?

One might think that FOX would be unwilling to give up that sort of content, especially to ESPN, as the two are obviously competing against each other like never before. BUT...what if FOX would be willing to sell in order to guarantee the future of the Big 12? FOX needs 1st and 2nd Tier content more than they need 3rd Tier content. There's no reasonable chance FOX gets the rights to a Big 12 Network, but they probably don't want Big 12 schools to be separated between the B1G, PAC 12, and certainly not the SEC or ACC. They need the content of a major conference in order to compete with ESPN.

Yes, FOX has content from the PAC, but that isn't likely to be strengthened. They will probably gain some content from the Big Ten negotiations, but that would at best replace what they'd be losing in a dissolved Big 12. Would the value of OU and KU in the B1G really be worth more to them than the entire Big 12? I doubt it. They could have both.

So...let's say they sell the rights and ESPN transitions the LHN to a Big 12 Network which obviously saves on start-up costs. The studio in Dallas doesn't go to waste and there's a chance that when the ACC collapses that the Big 12 Network actually grows stronger with some decent content from that region of the country. It would be a lot cheaper than fronting the money for an ACC Network.

The SEC gains some property. The B1G gains some property that ESPN splits the cost of with FOX. Perhaps ESPN buys into the PAC 12 Networks. ESPN is set up with lots of content for the inevitable transition to streaming. FOX gets what they need to compete with ESPN on a more direct basis.

1. FOX only has about 4 years to go on those T3 contracts.
2. Texas will get paid their 15 million a year until 2034 for the LHN. The question is how much would the existing and joining Big 12 schools chip in along with ESPN to make that transition to a B12N from a LHN?
3. If they add Cincinnati and another but do not extend the grant of rights then a network may not be forthcoming. If they expand and extend the existing GOR I think it is a good indication that they are getting that network. I could see them adding two solid schools now and waiting to see what happens with the ACC before adding more.
4. If the Big 10 added four from the ACC, the SEC added four from the ACC, and the Big 12 added four from the ACC that is enough to dissolve their conference.
In that scenario B.C., Wake Forest, and either Miami or Pitt get left out IMO.

So, Duke, Virginia, North Carolina, and Syracuse to the Big 10; Clemson, Florida State, N.C. State, and Virginia Tech to the SEC; Louisville, Miami, Pittsburgh, Georgia Tech to the Big 12; and Notre Dame most likely seeks an association with another conference. If the Big 12 wanted to go to 18 they could add B.C. & B.Y.U., or Connecticut.

I used to wonder why the B12 would want to expand with a couple of AAC schools now as opposed to waiting a couple of years for potential ACC leftovers. Then it occurred to me; leverage of a conference network. Any school leaving the ACC would have three options for a safe landing spot. This would make it easier for programs tied to "little brothers" to separate and go to different conferences knowing that both programs can find safe landing spots.

I think the Texas question is the key.

I ask myself, does UT have anything to gain my transitioning the LHN to a Big 12 Network and putting the league on a better footing for the future?

I. Texas doesn't really want to be in any other league. If the Big 12 doesn't survive in the long term then UT will have to find a less than ideal home. Why less than ideal?

-----------A. Texas is the most powerful program in the Big 12. They run the fiefdom so to speak. No other league will afford them this sort of power or influence. They would be the new guy. A wealthy new guy with a strong voice, but at best an equal partner.

-----------B. Texas wants to play local rivals. The other TX schools aren't particularly attractive to other leagues. UT has already lost A&M to another league and they will lose more local rivals if they themselves split.

II. Texas doesn't want to lose OU. The RRR would likely continue out of conference as it did for many decades before the two were in the same conference, but OU is the 2nd best draw in the league and there's no replacement for them. Losing OU would weaken the overall strength of the league irreparably. UT needs to give OU something they want.

III. The LHN makes good money for UT, but that's about it. UT doesn't have the Eastern exposure that they want. They don't have much exposure at all outside of TX which they didn't really need more of anyway. A Big 12 Network would afford UT the opportunity to market itself outside its region in a much more profound way. This is what conference networks have done for the Big Ten and the SEC. UT is losing out on that front. Especially if the Big 12 can gain a few ACC schools then UT stands to gain a great deal of additional exposure across the country.

IV. The opportunity to affiliate with Notre Dame. This was a dream of DeLoss Dodds, but the ACC was a much more natural fit for the Irish. If the ACC falls apart though then the Big 12 becomes much more attractive to ND. I could see them giving ND a nice sweetheart deal as long as they played Texas annually and probably had a few other concessions. If the Big 12 can capture a few nice Southern markets then the inclusion of the TX market itself may be enough to lure the Irish aboard.

Now the questions is would Texas give up it's guaranteed profits every year in exchange for becoming an equal partner in the Big 12 Network? Well, probably not, but I don't know that they would demand $15M a year either as long as they are getting the other benefits I listed above.

Any waivering of Boren demands could make OU's time in the B12 a lot shorter. Might explain some of the statements he gave to the Oklahoman Newspaper.

Quote:"Most people in the Big 12 want to stay in the Big 12. It's the right time to make progress.” That's not "everyone is happy to be here".

“It's a good time to act," Boren said. "Let's don't wait until we have a crisis or we're about to lose a member or two. We're stable right now, we like each other. Most people in the Big 12 want to stay in the Big 12. It's the right time to make progress.”

Going back to JR's point on who might go where...

SEC takes Florida State, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech

West: Texas A&M, Missouri, Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State
Central: Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Florida State
East: Virginia Tech, NC State, South Carolina, Clemson, Georgia, Florida

Big Ten takes North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Syracuse

West: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern
Central: Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Syracuse
East: Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke

Big 12, after taking Cincinnati and UConn to solidify themselves in the meantime, takes Louisville, Pittsburgh, Georgia Tech, Miami

West: Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State
East: Iowa State, Louisville, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Pittsburgh, UConn, Georgia Tech, Miami

Possibly gets an affiliation with Notre Dame as well.

(02-16-2016 11:55 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Going back to JR's point on who might go where...

SEC takes Florida State, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech

West: Texas A&M, Missouri, Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State
Central: Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Florida State
East: Virginia Tech, NC State, South Carolina, Clemson, Georgia, Florida

Big Ten takes North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Syracuse

West: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern
Central: Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Syracuse
East: Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke

Big 12, after taking Cincinnati and UConn to solidify themselves in the meantime, takes Louisville, Pittsburgh, Georgia Tech, Miami

West: Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State
East: Iowa State, Louisville, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Pittsburgh, UConn, Georgia Tech, Miami

Possibly gets an affiliation with Notre Dame as well.

Or in the event that the B1G is interested in Georgia Tech...

SEC could take Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, and Virginia Tech

West: Texas A&M, Missouri, Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss
South: Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Florida State, Miami
East: Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Clemson
North: Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech, NC State

B1G gets the same four.

Big 12 takes Louisville and Pittsburgh to move to 14.

Would this be horrible?

SEC gets Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, TT & WV

B1G gets Kansas, Syracuse, BC & UCONN

ACC gets ND, Texas, TCU, Houston, Kansas State & Iowa State

SEC
West Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, TT, Texas A&M, Missouri, Arkansas

Central Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St & Kentucky

East Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, SC & WV

B1G
East Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Syracuse, BC & UCONN

Central Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue & Northwestern

West Kansas, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois & Nebraska

ACC
Plaines Texas, TCU, Houston, Kansas State, Iowa State & Notre Dame

Atlantic FSU, Clemson, Louisville, NC State, WF & Pittsburgh

Coastal Miami, GT, NC, Duke, Virginia & VT

(02-19-2016 06:14 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Would this be horrible?

SEC gets Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, TT & WV

B1G gets Kansas, Syracuse, BC & UCONN

ACC gets ND, Texas, TCU, Houston, Kansas State & Iowa State

SEC
West Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, TT, Texas A&M, Missouri, Arkansas

Central Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St & Kentucky

East Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, SC & WV

B1G
East Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Syracuse, BC & UCONN

Central Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue & Northwestern

West Kansas, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois & Nebraska

ACC
Plaines Texas, TCU, Houston, Kansas State, Iowa State & Notre Dame

Atlantic FSU, Clemson, Louisville, NC State, WF & Pittsburgh

Coastal Miami, GT, NC, Duke, Virginia & VT

Lenville, if the SEC winds up with two Oklahomas I think that sends a message that the ACC is invulnerable.

At that point I think the Big 10 has to take two of these three: Iowa State, Connecticut, and Kansas. The obvious payoff to me is the last two. It appeases the West, solidifies the East, and establishes the Big 10 as the preeminent basketball conference.

Then West Virginia and Notre Dame all in for the ACC.

Texas, Texas Tech, and Kansas State to the PAC. Then the PAC chooses between Iowa State, Brigham Young, and one of the Texas privates for the 4th.

Now if 18 is the number things might change.
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Virginia Tech, N.C. State to the SEC.
Texas, Baylor, T.C.U. and West Virginia to the ACC. Notre Dame all in.

ACC:
Boston College, Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Duke, Clemson, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest
Baylor, Florida State, Kansas State, Miami, T.C.U., Texas, Texas Tech

SEC:
Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M
Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, N.C. State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech

That maximizes markets, adds the cachet to the ACC that it needs to attract N.D. all in and enough of Texas to land Texas.

Now if we don't have to take OSU to get OU then there are many other combinations that might be preferable.

You guys might want to take another look at the OP of this thread. It's coming to pass. What are your thoughts now?

(12-23-2019 09:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  You guys might want to take another look at the OP of this thread. It's coming to pass. What are your thoughts now?

The original post still works, but most of the other posts on it outside of the prediction posts clearly show their age.

If the SEC really is going to get 60 million plus in the next round and the Big 10 gets comparable if not more, then I wonder if there is going to be an expansion event horizon.

By that I mean that anyone not in the SEC or Big 10 will want in those two conferences, but at some point not even the best brands, whether Texas, OK or Clemson/FSU will provide enough value to actually take. I don't know what that line is.

Then the question for the rest is how best to compete. Invest more and try to make the brand more valuable to the SEC, or combine to form more frankenconferences that could get say $45-50 million.

(12-24-2019 01:04 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(12-23-2019 09:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  You guys might want to take another look at the OP of this thread. It's coming to pass. What are your thoughts now?

The original post still works, but most of the other posts on it outside of the prediction posts clearly show their age.

If the SEC really is going to get 60 million plus in the next round and the Big 10 gets comparable if not more, then I wonder if there is going to be an expansion event horizon.

By that I mean that anyone not in the SEC or Big 10 will want in those two conferences, but at some point not even the best brands, whether Texas, OK or Clemson/FSU will provide enough value to actually take. I don't know what that line is.

Then the question for the rest is how best to compete. Invest more and try to make the brand more valuable to the SEC, or combine to form more frankenconferences that could get say $45-50 million.

All forward looking posts with an accurate assessment as an OP will have dated posts following because recognizing the circumstance for change doesn't mean you can guess the path they will take.

As to the SEC's future payouts. In 2018 we earned 43.7 million. We are projected to get ~46 million this year. 350 million places us by 2024 when the CBS contract is up at 63.7 million by 2018 numbers, 66 million by 2019 projections with a built in escalator of almost 2 million a year in between. If ABC buys out the CBS contract we could get there sooner. Some of our escalator was with CBS and some with ESPN. Most of these contracts are back loaded but it's safe to say we will easily be in the mid 60's by 2024 and could be higher.

In 2018 the Big 10 was at 51.1. There estimate for this year is ~54 million and they are expecting to be (with escalators at 65 million by 2025 and 70 million by 2029. I'd say we are target to be within plus or minus 2-3 million of each other at worst.

You don't have to worry about Texas and Oklahoma. They both have an economic impact valuation by the WSJ of 1 billion plus or minus a little. Either or both of those brands would add value to the SEC or Big 10.

One of them with say a Kansas, or North Carolina, or F.S.U., or Clemson, or possibly a Virginia Tech would add enough to merit the inclusion for branding and for market penetration.

Personally, even though I play around with the 20 school scenarios and 18 school scenarios for the purposes of brainstorming playoff and access to the playoff structures, I believe that for the SEC and Big 10 we probably top out at 16 provide 1 or both of these schools are our addition.

To give you an idea of the breadth of their worth the whole SEC has a WSJ valuation of 7.5 billion. Texas and Oklahoma add about 28% more value to our conference. The whole Big 10 has a WSJ valuation of 5.5 billion. They add 38% more value to the Big 10. There's your ball game.

For the Big 10 there is another that would add .8 billion to their worth which can also be included and that is Notre Dame.

But it's not likely that N.D. could make that move until around 2035 when their GOR with the ACC expires. But they may have a way to game that system. Notre Dame owes 5 games to the ACC. It is theoretically possible that they could work a similar game with the Big 10 until 2035 like maybe agree to 4 games a year with them since those would be their own to use as they see fit. So until then they could play 5 with the ACC, 4 with the Big 10 and still schedule U.S.C., Stanford, and Navy. Impractical? Probably, but possible.

They'll make 5/12ths of 32 million with the ACC and be a full partner with the ACCN. The could double that with the Big 10. That's going to be mighty tempting. And their hockey plays in the Big 10 so there is an oblique affiliation already.

I like our chances at Texas and Oklahoma, but would be content with Oklahoma and Kansas.

I believe that the ACC will remain bound together until 2037, but I wouldn't rule out any play that might be made to acquire Texas fully for them and which would offer a lure for Notre Dame to ignore the Big 10 or perhaps more importantly to get the Big 10 to ignore the ACC.

That's why I'm wondering if in the hands of the ACC whether some kind of release of a couple of ACC schools to finish out the SEC might not be considered to make room for what could lure Texas which is namely homes for 3 other Texas schools that they can keep on the home schedule. Oklahoma and Kansas would head to the Big 10 which with those two would price themselves out of the realignment game and the SEC might get the footprint it wants if the two schools are Virginia Tech and N.C. State, or the content that adds some value in terms of Clemson and Florida State.

For these scenarios I consider them because of what is at stake for 1 of the two conferences to which ESPN now holds 100% of the rights, but my intuition tells me that Texas and Kansas or Oklahoma and Kansas will be the likeliest outcome.

If it is Texas it is because they have the most gain here. With A&M in the SEC already they would have that back along with Arkansas and to a lesser extent Missouri. If OU heads to the Big 10 then they keep that rivalry as an OOC game and they have 2 games left to schedule inside the state of Texas to keep at least 7 games in the state. 4 home SEC games, the RRR in Dallas, and the two others they schedule OOC. That preserves their business model which is very important to them and they get a leg up on OU who now must recruit Texas high school players to play much farther from home for most of the year and in the cold. They mitigate the A&M brand advantage by joining the SEC and they relegate T.C.U., Baylor, and Tech to lesser conferences enhancing their in state recruiting further.

If Texas gets all uppity and refuses to follow the Aggies to the SEC that's all well and good because Oklahoma would prefer to keep Texas connections.

There's a good chance they travel together to the SEC, but we'll see since there will be great political pressure on ESPN/Disney to help the ACC and to not tick off the Big 10 which they hold 49% of.

It should be fun.