Wahoowa84
All American
Posts: 3,525
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 516
I Root For: UVa
Location:
|
RE: ACC/BIG12 merger
(04-22-2021 04:45 AM)XLance Wrote: (04-21-2021 05:06 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: (04-21-2021 02:43 PM)ChrisLords Wrote: (04-21-2021 01:49 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: I’m going to tweak an idea JR had earlier just a bit:
ESPN negotiates to send NC St and VT to the SEC (=16)
The ACC adds Texas, Oklahoma, TTU, and Oklahoma St
ACC Pod 1: Pitt, Cuse, BC, Louisville
ACC Pod 2: UVA, UNC, Duke, WF
ACC Pod 3: Clemson, GT, Florida St, Miami
ACC Pod 4: Texas, TTU, Oklahoma, OK St
That’s pretty neat and tidy.
I like it. In the long run I prefer VT stay in the ACC if it doesn't lose any/many more members but if you have to go some where the SEC East is very attractive.
The ACC is neat and tidy but Pod 2 is really soft. I'm not sure they deserve an auto-bid to an ACC playoffs. If the top 2 pod winners face off in the ACCCG instead of a 4 team playoff, that is fine.
And, the SEC breaks down nicely into pods too.
SEC Pod 1: VT, UK, Tenn, Vandy
SEC Pod 2: NC St, SC, UGA, UF
SEC Pod 3: Aub, Ala, Ole Miss, Miss St
SEC Pod 4: LSU, Ark, Mizz, TAMU
Just dreaming...
Things would be so much simpler if the ACC, SEC and ESPN had perfectly aligned interests. Assuming that acquiring Texas, TTU, OU and Ok State was viable, then the case-to-beat alignment would be
Pod 1: Texas, TTU, OU, Ok St
Pod 2: TAMU, LSU, Ark, Mizz
Pod 3: Ole Miss, Miss St, Ala, Aub
Pod 4: Vandy, Tenn, UK, Louisville
Pod 5: Pitt, Cuse, BC, Miami
Pod 6: UVA, VT, UNC, Duke
Pod 7: NC St, WF, USC, Clemson
Pod 8: UGA, GT, UF, FSU
Eliminate the wasteful administrative overhead of duplicative conferences. Generate media value by encouraging geographic rivalries while scheduling more marquee brand games. For football...two pods = a division; four pods = a conference
Allow media payouts to vary by pod...thereby no school loses financially, a few schools would gain windfalls. The big financial winners: Texahoma (Pod 1 has major media value), Louisville (joining 3 SEC members in Pod 4), and GT & FSU (merging into a media friendly Pod 8).
I'm curious.
Back in the day it was regarded that the value in the Big 12 was in 4 schools: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia. I can understand the inclusion of Oklahoma State, but am having a hard time understanding why Texas Tech was chosen over another school( i.e. Kansas, West Virginia, TCU, Baylor)?
IMO...value fluctuates over time and value is partly judged in the eye-of-the-beholder. Depending on the circumstances, the preference for individual schools (Baylor, Kansas, TCU, TTU and WVU) is debatable. In a static world with ACC/SEC/ESPN as the decision-makers, Kansas would most likely be preferable...but there is not much difference in the value of each of these five athletic departments.
Value is differentiated (generated?) at the top-end of the scale. UT-Austin is a massive brand in college athletics...more valuable than any of the other schools in the theoretical 32 team union. Every other team will benefit financially from having Texas in the union; and having Texas’ athletics thriving helps everyone else. It’s not that Texas Tech is the most valued athletic property (as compared to Kansas, Baylor, TCU, WVU), but TTU creates synergies with UT Austin. TTU has a larger enrollment than other Texas schools, a public school with a focus on research (like UT Austin), in a location that expands the footprint and culture.
(This post was last modified: 04-22-2021 08:32 AM by Wahoowa84.)
|
|