(09-28-2023 06:19 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  Stanford & Cal football didn’t provide the value that Colorado, BYU, Arizona, Utah, etc could do a conference where they’re at.

Sure they did. The Big XII could have invited Oregon St., Wazzou, Stanford, and Cal and they would have satisfied the P5 pro-rata clause.

The issue was going beyond four because there were no pro-rata spots left.

(09-27-2023 02:30 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  People seem really reticent to acknowledge the two biggest structural changes in realignment and the future implications.

1) Deregulation of scheduling/divisions. People are still posting hypothetical conferences with divisions even after deregulation went through and conferences went divisionless. People are also slow to pick up that the B1G could NOT have picked up USCLA without this deregulation. Would USCLA have wanted to play in a western division rarely seeing OSU/UM? Would the networks have shelled out money to have USCLA play Minnesota and Illinois? The whole proposition was a no-go prior to deregulation of scheduling.

2) The return of unequal revenue distribution. People seem not to have registered the significance of schools like UW, UO, Cal, and Stanford accepting long-term reduced disbursements paired with most conferences acquiescing to some degree of merit-based unequal distribution.

The combination of these two factors has massive implications. Belonging to a conference no longer implies that 1) any two schools in the conference have to schedule one another. 2) any two schools in a conference have to be on the same revenue structure.

We went from having conferences with round robin play, to conferences with fixed divisions, to conferences with protected rivals to conferences that collectively negotiate tiered TV deals and arrange for loose scheduling agreements.

Ultimately the B1G and SEC are going to look less like the NFC and AFC and more like Uber and Lyft. Everybody else is looking for their NCAA taxi medallion.

The B1G could have 40 schools with Black, XL, and Basic tiers. UCLA could be contracted for XL tier revenue and scheduling 3 games each vs Black-west, XL-west, Basic-West, and XL-east. Amazon could be contracting for Black tier with the networks splitting XL and basic.

I don’t think that KW thinks that college football in 2036 even remotely resembles the conference-based structure of 2010 which is where most of us still seem to have our heads planted. People keep engaging in comparisons of the relative merits of the B12 and ACC when it’s the entirely plausible that neither exists beyond their current media contract.

I think the B1G and SEC are both much better positioned to leverage the networks for money than the standalone B12 and ACC are. As long as the B1G can pay the schools less and use the new schools to improve overall scheduling (put Arizona against Purdue and Georgia Tech against Rutgers to free up more Miami vs OSU matchups) they can make money by adding schools that fit the overall brand.

Bottom line is we are seeing the very beginning of conference consolidation, but IMO, it’s just going to ramp up with the result being that we have far fewer conferences with far greater variability within conferences with respect to revenue and scheduling arrangements.

To summarize this, the conferences are becoming even more of a reflection of the media companies. The companies are controlling conferences more and more, and whether that is good for the game pales in comparison to the almighty dollar.

The very beginning of conference consolidation started in the 80's* when Penn State negotiated to join the Big Ten from the A10. Then the SEC raided the SWC and Metro, followed by the SWC and Big 8 consolidating. This isn't a new concept. What's troubling is football still hasn't split off from the rest of athletics and you have dinosaurs like the Big Ten set against this idea even though it is creating absurd travel costs for Olympic sports.

Consolidation the Power Structure:

80's

Eastern Ind. (PSU, Pitt, SU, WVU, etc.)
ACC
Big Ten
Notre Dame
Southern Ind. (Miami, FSU, SC, Tulane, etc.)
SEC
SWC
Big 8
Pac 10

Notre Dame has always been "power" and the WAC was "power" until they lost Arizona and Arizona St., then they became sort of like the MWC was during the BCS era.

Current

ACC
Big Ten
Notre Dame
SEC
Big XII


Nobody outside of these groups has a program capable of winning a national title. We went from 9/10 down to 5 entities. That is consolidation. IMO, we are in the middle of it and it will get down to ONE entity. Anything else is silly and not consolidation. The people rooting for it—and there are many here—are going to find their team in a new age FCS. Congratulations.






* This point could be argued earlier in basketball related moves such as the Metro, A10 (Eastern 8), and Big East. Even earlier it was driven by regional (SEC) and athletic competition (ACC/Big 8) reasons.

(09-27-2023 12:55 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  

(09-25-2023 03:07 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-25-2023 01:52 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  If B12 money dries up while the ACC remains viable, those 4 are the most likely to be left behind as the ACC backfills.

https://sicem365.com/s/13048/how-many-vi...am-attract

It's only gotten worse for the ACC over the past couple years, and it's only gotten better for the Big 16. TCU and KState (!!), 2 tiny, forgotten Big 12 afterthoughts, pulled in 9.4m viewers for the Big 12 CCG last year. That's 50% more than the past 2 years combined of the ACC CCG. CU through 3 games this year has 25.3m viewers. Different school, and one that wasn't even an afterthought 9 months ago, and it's also joining the Big 12. Contrast that with the abysmal ratings of Calford and SMU over the past decade, past 5 years, past year...any time period you choose, the Big 12 recently got better, the ACC recently got worse, and your own precious Utes joined the Big 12...yet you continue to trash that Conference of poor, misbegotten Truck Stoppers like they've got leprosy. It's hardly any wonder that the Pac imploded, the wonder to me is just that so many of you found a new home.

It matters not to me if we look up in 2036 and have 2 Power Conferences, or 3, or 4, and I certainly don't care where Baylor, TCU, UH, KSt, ASU, Utah, etc etc play their Conference games. However, if I was a bettin' man, then I'd bet a lot more on the Big 12's continued stability and success than I would on the ACC's. The Big 12 got the 4 best schools leftover from the Pac after the B1G was done feeding, and the ACC was stuck with the schools the Big 12 didn't want. The Big 12 has lost 5 of their top 6 Brands in the past dozen years, and they're roughly equal to the ACC in media value today. What's the ACC going to look like after they lose their top 3-6?

I'll admit, I don't understand you. You were drowning and got thrown a $31.7m lifeline, and you'd rather dissect why it's made out of substandard rope than just tie it around your waist and use it to get to safety.

I'd really like to upvote this post by about +10. And their coach continues to intimate that they ought to be playing UCLA regularly very soon. Either he has been told something about near future realignment moves, a la JR's thesis (B1G Ten(nis) anyone?), or he is just amping the hopes of the fanbase.

It certainly takes the points for cape-sweeping drama.
'It matters not to me...!'

Dark as the purple that covers me
Black and blue as a blimp's own heaven
I thank whatever Frogs may be
For that score of 65 to 7....

As for hyping it +10, one may as well. B12 fans have been 'upvoting' a 31-ish million figure for months like it had ten extra zeros in it.

Meanwhile, the facts are established. The B12 didn't 'turn down' the San Francisco schools. The linked report clearly indicates that the B12 opted not to pursue them because it couldn't afford to add them. That's diplomatically leaving aside the question of whether either school would have returned the interest.

All of the PAC schools chose to maintain their own conference over joining the B12. They gave months to this priority. Everyone waited, everyone saw.

:coffee3:

(09-25-2023 11:03 AM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(09-25-2023 10:56 AM)solohawks Wrote:  I dont see Cal and Stanford being good partners in the Big 12. It wouldn't have been a pleasant experience for any of the involved parties

The ACC is going to have their hands full with those two.

The ACC is well versed in dealing with prima donnas.