(06-05-2020 10:32 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: (06-05-2020 09:26 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote: For the record, it was Big East Commissioner Mike Tranghese who first suggested that the ACC take the football schools. His vision however was a combining for football only.
The ACC instead of taking all the football schools for one sport only, cherry picked Big East schools for everything,
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
The ACC had no interest in creating a hybrid conference. The ACC understood that football was the revenue driver of the future, and that the league would need to expand in order to strengthen its football schools. Rivalries and branding are easier to create if schools play each other across many sports and alums share the same geography. The problem for the ACC was that a few schools were very comfortable with the status quo...hence the ACC has been reactive (FSU joined only after PSU joined the BIG; Miami/VT/BC were added only after the SEC proved that the CCG would be successful; Syracuse and Pitt joined only after the BIG and SEC had viable plans for a conference network).
Not sure that any conference cherry-picks additions. It is really the school that chooses to leave their old alignments in order to go to perceived greener pastures.
It is a marriage. Both parties have to want the other. And like men and women they are looking for different qualities in one another. The conference wants a high profile school with a national following preferably in football and depending upon the conference in question they may value cultural fit over academics, or academics over athletic prowess. In either case they would love to have a national brand football school with both athletic prowess and great academics. The school leaving is looking for higher revenue and security for the long term as best as they can determine it.
So there is some cherry picking on the part of both parties. Obviously a school that doesn't add to a conferences athletic and academic prestige is less likely to be taken, especially now that markets don't matter as much as profile and brand recognition by a national audience for particular sports. But no matter what the school must at least not detract from the current conference payouts and very likely had better add to them.
Therein lies the rub.
At 54,000,000 per school per year the Big 10 currently only has 3 schools that add to the bottom line that they can truly consider: Texas, Notre Dame, and Oklahoma in that order. Only one of those completely matches their norms, Texas. Notre Dame is acceptable both culturally and monetarily and their stellar undergraduate program has been deemed in the past to be acceptable academically. Oklahoma brings athletic branding in football, but lags academically to the point that upon their inclusion they would be the lowest rated academic institution within the new Big 10.
The SEC is currently paying out out 46 million roughly to member schools and that will jump to 67 million minimum by 2024. Right now at 46 million there are only 3 schools that add to its bottom line and they are the same schools that add to the Big 10 bottom line. Two of them are no brainers for SEC acceptance, Oklahoma and Texas. Notre Dame is not a cultural fit, nor would they be interested in the SEC.
The Rub:
Texas truly wants to remain and be literally the "Bell Cow" of their own conference. Oklahoma would prefer to remain with Texas and OSU. Oklahoma however is the school that could choose larger payouts over status quo. Texas isn't anywhere close to being needy or truly falling behind on that account.
If you look at the conference averages for Gross Total Revenue (all NET Revenue is fudged) and at Attendance, and at the WSJ's valuation of the programs within the conference ACC schools only meet or exceed two of those SEC averages and that's attendance and gross total revenue and in each case only 1 school in the ACC exceeds them. Clemson exceeds the SEC average on attendance and most years F.S.U. would but not for the last few years. Last year F.S.U. exceeded the SEC average in Gross Total Revenue for only the second time ever the first occurring some years back with renovation donations.
So if Texas won't move, and nobody in the ACC adds to the value of the SEC or Big 10, save for Notre Dame as a partial member of the ACC, then how does any realignment happen?
If the Big 12 is to be picked apart somebody has lure Oklahoma and likely Kansas out of it. Only if we get some relaxation on divisional requirements it would just take Oklahoma as Kansas doesn't add to the SEC or Big 10's bottom line either.
Outside of that the only thing that could force any movement of any kind would be the willingness of the Networks to remove another bell cow, North Carolina, and do so by paying either the Big 10 (likely) or SEC pro rata to take them, and likely along with Virginia. Ditto for N.C. State and Virginia Tech to make the moves politically feasible.
Now why would any network want to do that? Because it opens the door to build a much more valuable conference for less overall outlay around Texas and Oklahoma to maximize the value and multiply the # of content games those two industry leaders play annually. So you double the payouts for the two Virginia and two North Carolina schools, increase the payouts to Clemson, F.S.U., Georgia Tech, Miami, Louisville and Pitt over what they make in the ACC plus a bit over what the Big 12 currently makes and you create a much more dynamic conference around Texas which if this doesn't happen never exceeds the layout that ESPN has to pay them now. And make no mistake they are important to ESPN or the LHN average payout until 2031 (which is backloaded) would not be in excess of 15 million a year which for their T3 alone equals have of the complete per payout to the ACC schools.
It also prevents a feud between the Big 10 which ESPN has a little over a 45% stake in and the SEC which they now will have a 100% stake in. So this time Solomon won't offer to divide the baby, but rather find a foster home for it in the Big 12. Long range there is more stability, more national interest, and mitigated revenue disparities by making this kind of move, and that's good for the game.
Does it mean it will happen? No. But it is, and has to be, a serious consideration given the desires of Texas are not compatible with those of the Big 10 and SEC and giving the Big 10 and SEC each 20 million more market wise and doing so with only 4 schools that have to be covered to meet then conference payouts, is workable.
Do the Big 10 and SEC have to expand? No. But if we remain tied to the divisional requirement then expansion eases tensions in both conferences. If we abandon the current divisional requirements I doubt either would expand except to raise revenue and if Texas isn't budging that pretty well stops it.
I think a breakaway stops it as well. And whatever happens of these contingencies will dictate what the future of the CFP looks like.