(01-10-2016 04:02 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 03:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 03:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 02:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  The best way to enhance the Big 12 is to add LSU and Arkansas.
Those two schools are the only schools I ever see mentioned on any Oklahoma postings.
The Big 12 has only two national brands and need more....right? Give 'em LSU and a strong regional brand in Arkansas...BOOM!

Come on. You don't actually think there's any chance Arkansas and LSU are going to leave the SEC, do you?

He's just trolling.

Ren. I thought the ACC and SEC should have worked together to do this 3 years ago. I think in retrospect it is safe to say that ESPN didn't want to be paying that many schools relatively exclusively.

I don't think that is viable any longer, if it ever was.

Trolling? No, I just want to mention that there is more than one way to skin a cat.
The networks have all of the data and the pressure is on them to make more money. Who is to say what lengths the Mouse would go to to make a profit?

Okay we'll play this game. Let's be ESPN and decide where we want to trim and where we don't.

We are moving to a streaming sensitive environment, which is what will precede a payment model based upon streaming. Brands will now be important. There is more content in the SEC between brand schools than in any of the other P5 conferences.

The ACC only has 1 national football brand compared to 3-4 for the PAC, 5-6 for the Big 10, and 7 for the SEC.

The ACC's greatest content value is in basketball. The Big 10 has the most solid Basketball content. There are no ACC football schools with the credentials for the Big 10. There are 3 with the credentials for the SEC. The ACC has 14 schools that are paid more than their market utilization would indicate to pay them. The SEC is making more money than ESPN anticipated.

I'm an Ivy graduate with no ax to grind which conference do I cut?

I can land the T1 of the Big 10 if I help them acquire the brands they want. Those brands while sought by the SEC as well are not required by the SEC. If I place the 4 basketball schools whose content I desire most in the Big 10 and the 4 football schools whose content I desire the most in the SEC. Both ways for 1/4 less expense in total I multiply my content values for the 8 I retain exponentially.

The others I only have to pay half value for if I share then with FOX. The 4 going to the Big 10 I only have to increase by 25% as FOX has the bigger stake in them.

What do I do? Get rid of the most profitable product I have and piss them off in the process, or break up the Frankenstein conference that they are paying more than their worth? Hmm.......... Do we really need to think about that one?

Nope!

Frankenstein conference? JR you never cease to amaze me.

The great thing about moving to streaming is that the ACC won't have anything taken away or renegotiated like conferences with current networks.

BTW we had already decided to put ourselves in ESPN's hands. The great thing about doing it when we did was; the ACC might not have gotten the price that we wanted, but we were able to set terms with written guarantees.

(01-10-2016 05:19 PM)XLance Wrote:  Frankenstein conference? JR you never cease to amaze me.

The great thing about moving to streaming is that the ACC won't have anything taken away or renegotiated like conferences with current networks.

BTW we had already decided to put ourselves in ESPN's hands. The great thing about doing it when we did was; the ACC might not have gotten the price that we wanted, but we were able to set terms with written guarantees.

Yep and you'll live with them for quite a while. Did you not realize that the SECN is contracted until 2034? I'm sure it can be renegotiated as well. And really do you think that moving to an actual viewers model is in your favor? Get real! The SEC would be making even more money if we got an average % of payout for all viewers. We are the most viewed conference and the Big 10 is not really very close behind. But they are way ahead of the PAC and ACC. The Big 12 is actually third in that department and not that far behind the Big 10.

(01-10-2016 06:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 05:19 PM)XLance Wrote:  Frankenstein conference? JR you never cease to amaze me.

The great thing about moving to streaming is that the ACC won't have anything taken away or renegotiated like conferences with current networks.

BTW we had already decided to put ourselves in ESPN's hands. The great thing about doing it when we did was; the ACC might not have gotten the price that we wanted, but we were able to set terms with written guarantees.

Yep and you'll live with them for quite a while. Did you not realize that the SECN is contracted until 2034? I'm sure it can be renegotiated as well. And really do you think that moving to an actual viewers model is in your favor? Get real! The SEC would be making even more money if we got an average % of payout for all viewers. We are the most viewed conference and the Big 10 is not really very close behind. But they are way ahead of the PAC and ACC. The Big 12 is actually third in that department and not that far behind the Big 10.

BTW, what does that mean; Frankenstein Conference?
I'm sure you are not being complimentary by saying that the ACC is a Monster Conference......it's just not you.

(01-10-2016 09:08 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 06:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 05:19 PM)XLance Wrote:  Frankenstein conference? JR you never cease to amaze me.

The great thing about moving to streaming is that the ACC won't have anything taken away or renegotiated like conferences with current networks.

BTW we had already decided to put ourselves in ESPN's hands. The great thing about doing it when we did was; the ACC might not have gotten the price that we wanted, but we were able to set terms with written guarantees.

Yep and you'll live with them for quite a while. Did you not realize that the SECN is contracted until 2034? I'm sure it can be renegotiated as well. And really do you think that moving to an actual viewers model is in your favor? Get real! The SEC would be making even more money if we got an average % of payout for all viewers. We are the most viewed conference and the Big 10 is not really very close behind. But they are way ahead of the PAC and ACC. The Big 12 is actually third in that department and not that far behind the Big 10.

BTW, what does that mean; Frankenstein Conference?
I'm sure you are not being complimentary by saying that the ACC is a Monster Conference......it's just not you.

It means stitched together out of the body parts of other conferences and spares where only the core keeps the heart beating.

(01-10-2016 03:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Ren. I thought the ACC and SEC should have worked together to do this 3 years ago. I think in retrospect it is safe to say that ESPN didn't want to be paying that many schools relatively exclusively.

I don't think that is viable any longer, if it ever was.

What are you saying is no longer viable?

The idea of the SEC and ACC teaming up to split the Big 12? Or the idea of ESPN not wanting to pay that many schools exclusively?

(01-10-2016 11:40 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 03:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Ren. I thought the ACC and SEC should have worked together to do this 3 years ago. I think in retrospect it is safe to say that ESPN didn't want to be paying that many schools relatively exclusively.

I don't think that is viable any longer, if it ever was.

What are you saying is no longer viable?

The idea of the SEC and ACC teaming up to split the Big 12? Or the idea of ESPN not wanting to pay that many schools exclusively?

Both. If ESPN doesn't want to pay that many schools by itself, the concept of the SEC & ACC splitting the Big 12 is D.O.A..

(01-10-2016 10:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 09:08 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 06:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 05:19 PM)XLance Wrote:  Frankenstein conference? JR you never cease to amaze me.

The great thing about moving to streaming is that the ACC won't have anything taken away or renegotiated like conferences with current networks.

BTW we had already decided to put ourselves in ESPN's hands. The great thing about doing it when we did was; the ACC might not have gotten the price that we wanted, but we were able to set terms with written guarantees.

Yep and you'll live with them for quite a while. Did you not realize that the SECN is contracted until 2034? I'm sure it can be renegotiated as well. And really do you think that moving to an actual viewers model is in your favor? Get real! The SEC would be making even more money if we got an average % of payout for all viewers. We are the most viewed conference and the Big 10 is not really very close behind. But they are way ahead of the PAC and ACC. The Big 12 is actually third in that department and not that far behind the Big 10.

BTW, what does that mean; Frankenstein Conference?
I'm sure you are not being complimentary by saying that the ACC is a Monster Conference......it's just not you.

It means stitched together out of the body parts of other conferences and spares where only the core keeps the heart beating.

That's the pot calling the kettle black.
The ACC has only taken schools that were in the Big East unlike the SEC that broke up the SWC because Texas wouldn't come by grabbing Arkansas. Then after being rejected by Florida State the SEC settled for an ACC run-away in South Carolina that had already sunk just below East Carolina. Then the mighty SEC lured A&M and enticed Missouri to join from the Big 12 ............Missouri!!!!!
Talk about a patchwork cluster..............

(01-09-2016 10:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 03:39 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  If the Big 12 expands I think we will have the status quo until the end of the GOR's. I don't see Oklahoma or Texas being happy with the expansion though. If the ACC doesn't have a network by then then it would be vulnerable also. The B1G & SEC would most likely go to war & in essence create a P3 but have the leftovers merge into a tweener conference. Chaos would undoubtedly ensue. Or, what I think would be more likely, a new conference will be formed around Texas, Oklahoma, ND, FSU & Clemson creating a balanced P4. This would essentially be a partial merger of the Big 12 & the ACC. The SEC & B1G could still pickup 2 each. ESPN & Fox would have to decide what they want or risk going to war themselves. I'm not convinced that college football wants a P3 as that would all but guarantee that someone would get 2 into the CFP. The scenarios are endless. Brokering the moves now I think would be far less chaotic. I think #2 would be the least likely.

Stop and rethink what you propose not from the vantage point of a fan, or of a college administration, but from the vantage point of the Networks. What are the athletic brands of the ACC? Don't think academics, don't think historical control, and don't think of who the Big 10 or SEC would want.

Football brands: Florida State, Clemson, gap, Virginia Tech, Miami, Georgia Tech
Basketball brands: North Carolina, Duke, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Virginia gap, N.C. State, Miami.

Now ask this question, "If we parse the ACC in order to maximize content value in the SEC, the Big 10, or in a new conference built around Texas and Oklahoma how do we decide to this?

The answer to that question is not as obvious as you might think. What adds more content value to the Big 10 basketball or football brands? Frankly I would argue that basketball brands add more value to the Big 10 than football brands would. Why? The best football brands of the ACC are not really contiguous and the basketball brands are. The football brands of the Big 10 are so iconic, and limited, that adding even Florida State to them does not maximize the commercial value of Florida State or the Big 10 as much as it would if Florida State was pitted against the brands of the SEC. Nor would it enhance the Big 10 as much as it would a rebuilt football conference centered around Texas and Oklahoma.

So if you are a network executive who realizes that the most value you could get out of moving teams from the ACC to the Big 10 would be for basketball brands, and that the requirements of the Big 10 were best suited for those schools rather than for football brands what do you do?

Syracuse, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and possibly Pitt become the schools you look at moving. Notre Dame wants to be with those schools. Notre Dame has hockey. Notre Dame plays solid basketball (men's & women's). And more importantly Notre Dame wants to pursue lacrosse. Not so oddly the Big 10 has the same objectives. So if you are moving to a P4 set up by design then Duke, North Carolina, Virginia and Notre Dame to the Big 10 would provide the optimum mix of schools. 2 huge markets, 4 academic powerhouses, 2 solid basketball brands, 2 good basketball brands, and one solid football brand with one good football brand is almost the ideal addition to the Big 10 considering no other conference expects to be able to land Notre Dame outside of the ACC, and a rebuilt Big 12 is to distant for Notre Dame minor sports. The Big 10 has really solid branding in hoops. Adding 4 more solid basketball programs to the Big 10 solidifies the interest of New England and the hoops crazy mid Atlantic. Notre Dame immediately multiplies both basketball branding and football branding in the Big 10. And this is done without totally upsetting the SEC, or ruining a chance to enhance the Big 12.

If you take the Big 10 to a 20 team configuration then adding Syracuse and Boston College, or possibly Pitt makes sense. More hoops, more markets, more hockey, more lacrosse all add up to seizing the market you are pursuing.

How do you enhance the value of the SEC? You multiply football content and strengthen their regional appeal. Virginia Tech & N.C. State give them markets and two reasonable football brands. Clemson multiplies their content value as does Florida State. All of the additions serve only to solidify the Southeastern brand of the SEC. Should the SEC move to a P3 model then adding Georgia Tech and Louisville would accomplish the same.

Here two large markets and two large brands are added all of which maximize the profits for the SEC and through the SECN, ESPN.

Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, and Miami could form the Eastern Division of an enhanced Big 12. Adding Cincinnati to Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State could form a very nice Norther Division. Adding Brigham Young and Colorado State to Texas, Texas Tech, T.C.U. and Baylor gives you a very nice Western division. Wake could be replaced by B.C. or UConn if necessary but the NET effect would be the same. Texas and Oklahoma are enhanced with footprint size enough to have a network, by permitting brands to reemerge in the East as Louisville and Miami and West Virginia battle it out for the East with Pitt and Georgia Tech making runs from time to time. They are enhanced by having an annual potential of having Oklahoma emerge from the North, and by having strong viable brands in Texas holding down that 26 million viewer market by continuing to play one another while tying in Denver and bringing in the Mormons.

Jim Delany is ecstatic. The Big 10 president's see it as a grand slam. ESPN gets a long term T1 deal.

The SEC essentially fulfills the goals it had in '91 only with the added markets of Virginia and North Carolina. Rivalries are insured and the content value goes up by a multiple of 2 x 6.

Texas and Oklahoma get their own conference, a network, and avoid leaving their region.

The PAC stands alone at 12 and will have to grow their own expansion. But since it is the next to least profitable conference with the next to least utilized market, and since no national network has a stake in it, that is exactly what the networks would want.

So the new P4 configuration is 18, 18, 18, & 12 = 66 schools. If we move to a P3 it means that the PAC agreed to sell a significant % of their self owned network to ESPN, or FOX, or both and that they will absorb 8 schools from the Big 12, while the SEC & Big 10 take 6 each from the ACC.

If faced with the decision of including another school in a regionally grouped P4 which enhances the greatest value for the network that each conference can offer, or moving to a more balanced P3 but with 6 less schools and more legal headaches, I think the networks lean toward the former.

I would not hold my breath for this.

(01-11-2016 08:54 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 10:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 03:39 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  If the Big 12 expands I think we will have the status quo until the end of the GOR's. I don't see Oklahoma or Texas being happy with the expansion though. If the ACC doesn't have a network by then then it would be vulnerable also. The B1G & SEC would most likely go to war & in essence create a P3 but have the leftovers merge into a tweener conference. Chaos would undoubtedly ensue. Or, what I think would be more likely, a new conference will be formed around Texas, Oklahoma, ND, FSU & Clemson creating a balanced P4. This would essentially be a partial merger of the Big 12 & the ACC. The SEC & B1G could still pickup 2 each. ESPN & Fox would have to decide what they want or risk going to war themselves. I'm not convinced that college football wants a P3 as that would all but guarantee that someone would get 2 into the CFP. The scenarios are endless. Brokering the moves now I think would be far less chaotic. I think #2 would be the least likely.

Stop and rethink what you propose not from the vantage point of a fan, or of a college administration, but from the vantage point of the Networks. What are the athletic brands of the ACC? Don't think academics, don't think historical control, and don't think of who the Big 10 or SEC would want.

Football brands: Florida State, Clemson, gap, Virginia Tech, Miami, Georgia Tech
Basketball brands: North Carolina, Duke, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Virginia gap, N.C. State, Miami.

Now ask this question, "If we parse the ACC in order to maximize content value in the SEC, the Big 10, or in a new conference built around Texas and Oklahoma how do we decide to this?

The answer to that question is not as obvious as you might think. What adds more content value to the Big 10 basketball or football brands? Frankly I would argue that basketball brands add more value to the Big 10 than football brands would. Why? The best football brands of the ACC are not really contiguous and the basketball brands are. The football brands of the Big 10 are so iconic, and limited, that adding even Florida State to them does not maximize the commercial value of Florida State or the Big 10 as much as it would if Florida State was pitted against the brands of the SEC. Nor would it enhance the Big 10 as much as it would a rebuilt football conference centered around Texas and Oklahoma.

So if you are a network executive who realizes that the most value you could get out of moving teams from the ACC to the Big 10 would be for basketball brands, and that the requirements of the Big 10 were best suited for those schools rather than for football brands what do you do?

Syracuse, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and possibly Pitt become the schools you look at moving. Notre Dame wants to be with those schools. Notre Dame has hockey. Notre Dame plays solid basketball (men's & women's). And more importantly Notre Dame wants to pursue lacrosse. Not so oddly the Big 10 has the same objectives. So if you are moving to a P4 set up by design then Duke, North Carolina, Virginia and Notre Dame to the Big 10 would provide the optimum mix of schools. 2 huge markets, 4 academic powerhouses, 2 solid basketball brands, 2 good basketball brands, and one solid football brand with one good football brand is almost the ideal addition to the Big 10 considering no other conference expects to be able to land Notre Dame outside of the ACC, and a rebuilt Big 12 is to distant for Notre Dame minor sports. The Big 10 has really solid branding in hoops. Adding 4 more solid basketball programs to the Big 10 solidifies the interest of New England and the hoops crazy mid Atlantic. Notre Dame immediately multiplies both basketball branding and football branding in the Big 10. And this is done without totally upsetting the SEC, or ruining a chance to enhance the Big 12.

If you take the Big 10 to a 20 team configuration then adding Syracuse and Boston College, or possibly Pitt makes sense. More hoops, more markets, more hockey, more lacrosse all add up to seizing the market you are pursuing.

How do you enhance the value of the SEC? You multiply football content and strengthen their regional appeal. Virginia Tech & N.C. State give them markets and two reasonable football brands. Clemson multiplies their content value as does Florida State. All of the additions serve only to solidify the Southeastern brand of the SEC. Should the SEC move to a P3 model then adding Georgia Tech and Louisville would accomplish the same.

Here two large markets and two large brands are added all of which maximize the profits for the SEC and through the SECN, ESPN.

Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, and Miami could form the Eastern Division of an enhanced Big 12. Adding Cincinnati to Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State could form a very nice Norther Division. Adding Brigham Young and Colorado State to Texas, Texas Tech, T.C.U. and Baylor gives you a very nice Western division. Wake could be replaced by B.C. or UConn if necessary but the NET effect would be the same. Texas and Oklahoma are enhanced with footprint size enough to have a network, by permitting brands to reemerge in the East as Louisville and Miami and West Virginia battle it out for the East with Pitt and Georgia Tech making runs from time to time. They are enhanced by having an annual potential of having Oklahoma emerge from the North, and by having strong viable brands in Texas holding down that 26 million viewer market by continuing to play one another while tying in Denver and bringing in the Mormons.

Jim Delany is ecstatic. The Big 10 president's see it as a grand slam. ESPN gets a long term T1 deal.

The SEC essentially fulfills the goals it had in '91 only with the added markets of Virginia and North Carolina. Rivalries are insured and the content value goes up by a multiple of 2 x 6.

Texas and Oklahoma get their own conference, a network, and avoid leaving their region.

The PAC stands alone at 12 and will have to grow their own expansion. But since it is the next to least profitable conference with the next to least utilized market, and since no national network has a stake in it, that is exactly what the networks would want.

So the new P4 configuration is 18, 18, 18, & 12 = 66 schools. If we move to a P3 it means that the PAC agreed to sell a significant % of their self owned network to ESPN, or FOX, or both and that they will absorb 8 schools from the Big 12, while the SEC & Big 10 take 6 each from the ACC.

If faced with the decision of including another school in a regionally grouped P4 which enhances the greatest value for the network that each conference can offer, or moving to a more balanced P3 but with 6 less schools and more legal headaches, I think the networks lean toward the former.

I would not hold my breath for this.

The ACC and Notre Dame have developed a symbiotic relationship (Mutualism). I don't see that relationship changing any time soon (at least not during this round of realignment).
The Irish will support the ACC's existence in any way possible so that they can remain semi-independent.

(01-11-2016 08:35 AM)XLance Wrote:  
That's the pot calling the kettle black.
The ACC has only taken schools that were in the Big East unlike the SEC that broke up the SWC because Texas wouldn't come by grabbing Arkansas. Then after being rejected by Florida State the SEC settled for an ACC run-away in South Carolina that had already sunk just below East Carolina. Then the mighty SEC lured A&M and enticed Missouri to join from the Big 12 ............Missouri!!!!!
Talk about a patchwork cluster..............

Hoss, there are 4 current members that are not founding members. Each of the new additions added value and was similar in culture to the existing mixture.

You obviously don't understand what JR is referring to.

(01-11-2016 02:31 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-11-2016 08:35 AM)XLance Wrote:  
That's the pot calling the kettle black.
The ACC has only taken schools that were in the Big East unlike the SEC that broke up the SWC because Texas wouldn't come by grabbing Arkansas. Then after being rejected by Florida State the SEC settled for an ACC run-away in South Carolina that had already sunk just below East Carolina. Then the mighty SEC lured A&M and enticed Missouri to join from the Big 12 ............Missouri!!!!!
Talk about a patchwork cluster..............

Hoss, there are 4 current members that are not founding members. Each of the new additions added value and was similar in culture to the existing mixture.

You obviously don't understand what JR is referring to.

Realistically to answer the OP's question in the thread title should the Big 12 expand all of the pressure regarding future realignment shifts back to the ACC. It is a metamorphic conference, without a network, and with a growing revenue gap.

(01-11-2016 06:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-11-2016 02:31 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-11-2016 08:35 AM)XLance Wrote:  
That's the pot calling the kettle black.
The ACC has only taken schools that were in the Big East unlike the SEC that broke up the SWC because Texas wouldn't come by grabbing Arkansas. Then after being rejected by Florida State the SEC settled for an ACC run-away in South Carolina that had already sunk just below East Carolina. Then the mighty SEC lured A&M and enticed Missouri to join from the Big 12 ............Missouri!!!!!
Talk about a patchwork cluster..............

Hoss, there are 4 current members that are not founding members. Each of the new additions added value and was similar in culture to the existing mixture.

You obviously don't understand what JR is referring to.

Realistically to answer the OP's question in the thread title should the Big 12 expand all of the pressure regarding future realignment shifts back to the ACC. It is a metamorphic conference, without a network, and with a growing revenue gap.

Metamorphic conference?
The Big 12 and the ACC and to a lesser extent, the PAC are all in a situation where it will be hard to keep up with the B1G and SEC.
The Big 12 is in the most vulnerable position because their footprint is population challenged, while the ACC has the most upside with proper marketing. The pressure on the ACC is to "step up" while the pressure on the Big 12 is to survive.

(01-11-2016 07:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-11-2016 06:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-11-2016 02:31 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-11-2016 08:35 AM)XLance Wrote:  
That's the pot calling the kettle black.
The ACC has only taken schools that were in the Big East unlike the SEC that broke up the SWC because Texas wouldn't come by grabbing Arkansas. Then after being rejected by Florida State the SEC settled for an ACC run-away in South Carolina that had already sunk just below East Carolina. Then the mighty SEC lured A&M and enticed Missouri to join from the Big 12 ............Missouri!!!!!
Talk about a patchwork cluster..............

Hoss, there are 4 current members that are not founding members. Each of the new additions added value and was similar in culture to the existing mixture.

You obviously don't understand what JR is referring to.

Realistically to answer the OP's question in the thread title should the Big 12 expand all of the pressure regarding future realignment shifts back to the ACC. It is a metamorphic conference, without a network, and with a growing revenue gap.

Metamorphic conference?
The Big 12 and the ACC and to a lesser extent, the PAC are all in a situation where it will be hard to keep up with the B1G and SEC.
The Big 12 is in the most vulnerable position because their footprint is population challenged, while the ACC has the most upside with proper marketing. The pressure on the ACC is to "step up" while the pressure on the Big 12 is to survive.

If they add Houston & Cincinnati you'll be right. If they add Connecticut and B.Y.U. things will be positioned for more sustainable growth.

(01-10-2016 02:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  The best way to enhance the Big 12 is to add LSU and Arkansas.
Those two schools are the only schools I ever see mentioned on any Oklahoma postings.
The Big 12 has only two national brands and need more....right? Give 'em LSU and a strong regional brand in Arkansas...BOOM!

While the B12 needs more brands, the Hogs and bayou Bengals wouldn't be enough of a fix. Schools north of Oklahoma don't want a repeat of the B12 North, while schools in the south aren't interested in being separated from Texas and Oklahoma.

(01-12-2016 08:19 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 02:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  The best way to enhance the Big 12 is to add LSU and Arkansas.
Those two schools are the only schools I ever see mentioned on any Oklahoma postings.
The Big 12 has only two national brands and need more....right? Give 'em LSU and a strong regional brand in Arkansas...BOOM!

While the B12 needs more brands, the Hogs and bayou Bengals wouldn't be enough of a fix. Schools north of Oklahoma don't want a repeat of the B12 North, while schools in the south aren't interested in being separated from Texas and Oklahoma.

You are correct. That's why ESPN created the zipper for the ACC. I'll admit it is not the easiest thing to deal with, but if you understand that it's short term, it's bearable. It is like having to deal with Auburn playing in the west.......go figure.
When (not if) we get to 16 a lot of scheduling problems will be resolved and a standard scheduling format will be adopted. In the mean time LSU and Arkansas would make the Big 12 one heck of a conference, zipper and all.

(01-12-2016 09:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 08:19 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 02:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  The best way to enhance the Big 12 is to add LSU and Arkansas.
Those two schools are the only schools I ever see mentioned on any Oklahoma postings.
The Big 12 has only two national brands and need more....right? Give 'em LSU and a strong regional brand in Arkansas...BOOM!

While the B12 needs more brands, the Hogs and bayou Bengals wouldn't be enough of a fix. Schools north of Oklahoma don't want a repeat of the B12 North, while schools in the south aren't interested in being separated from Texas and Oklahoma.

You are correct. That's why ESPN created the zipper for the ACC. I'll admit it is not the easiest thing to deal with, but if you understand that it's short term, it's bearable. It is like having to deal with Auburn playing in the west.......go figure.
When (not if) we get to 16 a lot of scheduling problems will be resolved and a standard scheduling format will be adopted. In the mean time LSU and Arkansas would make the Big 12 one heck of a conference, zipper and all.

You're one of the few who recognize that the zipper is the best configuration for the ACC. That said, how would you compensate the SEC for the loss of LSU and Ark?

(01-12-2016 10:12 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 09:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 08:19 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 02:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  The best way to enhance the Big 12 is to add LSU and Arkansas.
Those two schools are the only schools I ever see mentioned on any Oklahoma postings.
The Big 12 has only two national brands and need more....right? Give 'em LSU and a strong regional brand in Arkansas...BOOM!

While the B12 needs more brands, the Hogs and bayou Bengals wouldn't be enough of a fix. Schools north of Oklahoma don't want a repeat of the B12 North, while schools in the south aren't interested in being separated from Texas and Oklahoma.

You are correct. That's why ESPN created the zipper for the ACC. I'll admit it is not the easiest thing to deal with, but if you understand that it's short term, it's bearable. It is like having to deal with Auburn playing in the west.......go figure.
When (not if) we get to 16 a lot of scheduling problems will be resolved and a standard scheduling format will be adopted. In the mean time LSU and Arkansas would make the Big 12 one heck of a conference, zipper and all.

You're one of the few who recognize that the zipper is the best configuration for the ACC. That said, how would you compensate the SEC for the loss of LSU and Ark?

Vandiver he constantly trolls this board with scenarios of the SEC losing schools. Nobody is leaving the SEC unless it's some kind of deal where Missouri heads to the Big 10 and we pick up three.

The realities are really rather simple and have not changed since 2010.
1. There isn't enough value in the Big 12 to place enough schools to achieve dissolution.
2. Florida State would leave the ACC in a heartbeat if they could improve their football foes and enhance revenue at the same time. The only place they can do that is the SEC but ESPN won't pay us for them and has said so.
3. Clemson would be likely to leave if F.S.U. did and then Virginia Tech would have a tough choice to face.
4. The ACC's revenue and value as a sports commodity would be significantly impaired if those three were absent from the lineup.
5. Status quo favors the SEC over the rest. The Big 10 needs content multipliers worse than we do. Two content multipliers added to the SEC cements our advantage moving forward. Hence all of the other conferences wanting us to take the scrubs while they get the jewels. Money and business doesn't work that way.
6. The PAC won't get anything substantial until they give up a % of the PACN to either FOX or ESPN or both.
7. The Big 12 can't pay enough to attract a major brand.
8. Notre Dame won't go all in with the ACC unless they can cement their standing with brand adds.
9. The ACC doesn't pay enough to attract brands to go all in.
10. The SEC will continue to enjoy the best revenues and the Big 10 will continue to enjoy having the second best revenues and the their academics.
11. The GOR's will come to an end in both the ACC & Big 12. Their brands will be absorbed and eventually a best of the rest buffer conference will be formed.

JR, save for Mizzou I agree with you that no one is leaving the SEC. That said, I like to see people 'show their work' and describe the plan to its rational end and prove the logic.

XLance believes that two SEC schools would resolve the issues within the B12. It won't IMO. I think the only way to save the B12 is overpayment. And that plan was a one time deal and ultimately not a long term strategy.

(01-12-2016 10:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Vandiver he constantly trolls this board with scenarios of the SEC losing schools. Nobody is leaving the SEC unless it's some kind of deal where Missouri heads to the Big 10 and we pick up three.

The realities are really rather simple and have not changed since 2010.
1. There isn't enough value in the Big 12 to place enough schools to achieve dissolution.
2. Florida State would leave the ACC in a heartbeat if they could improve their football foes and enhance revenue at the same time. The only place they can do that is the SEC but ESPN won't pay us for them and has said so.
3. Clemson would be likely to leave if F.S.U. did and then Virginia Tech would have a tough choice to face.
4. The ACC's revenue and value as a sports commodity would be significantly impaired if those three were absent from the lineup.
5. Status quo favors the SEC over the rest. The Big 10 needs content multipliers worse than we do. Two content multipliers added to the SEC cements our advantage moving forward. Hence all of the other conferences wanting us to take the scrubs while they get the jewels. Money and business doesn't work that way.
6. The PAC won't get anything substantial until they give up a % of the PACN to either FOX or ESPN or both.
7. The Big 12 can't pay enough to attract a major brand.
8. Notre Dame won't go all in with the ACC unless they can cement their standing with brand adds.
9. The ACC doesn't pay enough to attract brands to go all in.
10. The SEC will continue to enjoy the best revenues and the Big 10 will continue to enjoy having the second best revenues and the their academics.
11. The GOR's will come to an end in both the ACC & Big 12. Their brands will be absorbed and eventually a best of the rest buffer conference will be formed.

11 is certainly up for debate, 10 will hold only until the new B1G TV contracts get worked out. The cable bubble has not popped yet, and likely won't before the deal is signed. Every estimate has the B1G making more than the SEC with their new deal.

But generally, you are spot on.