(09-13-2017 08:21 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: (09-13-2017 07:51 PM)bullet Wrote: I have a very different take than JRSEC. I think the Jim Delaney and the Big 10 and Notre Dame are out there pulling strings. Everybody else is just reacting. ESPN's power is that they can veto everybody else's reactions. But the Big 10 and Notre Dame still can do what they want. Most of the rest have been relatively happy and just want to maintain their place in the pecking order. And there are a few schools that can tell the Big 10 and Notre Dame no. Nobody has told Notre Dame no yet. North Carolina and Texas have probably told the Big 10 no.
It will be interesting to see if the Big 10 is as aggressive once Jim Delaney retires.
The ending of the NCAA TV monopoly lead to the mass 90s realignment, but it was the Big 10 taking Penn St. that started the dominos.
The Big 10 initiated the conference network model which created the basis for the next major realignment. And then their "request for proposals" lead to the mass realignment starting in 2010, with the Pac 16 idea and the Pac eventually taking Colorado and the Big 10 taking Nebraska, followed by the rest of the changes.
UNC and UVa have both said no and will never say yes. The cultural differences are too great, and the alumni can raise as much money as they need.
Remember, Maryland left the ACC for reasons in addition to money - they formed the ACC in 1953 but no longer were a major player, they hated Duke's, UNC's, and UVa's stranglehold. They were insulted to see how VT was welcomed as the prodigal son. They did not want to be in a northern ACC divisions. But most of all, their system President wanted it to happen because of his past association with Ohio State and disgust at a situation in the conference.
The reason the B10 makes the most money is because their alumni base is twice the size of the average SEC school (before the addition of TAMU) and the placement of that alumni base is in and the media markets of Chicago, Detroit, Indianapolis, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Cleveland, New York, Boston, and DC, etc.
They are SUPPOSED to make the most - that's what half a million alums and the Defense Industrial Complex does for you.
A couple of points for both of you.
First the simplest. LP4 be sure to differentiate TV money from money when talking about the SEC and the Big 10. It is true that the Big 10 usually makes more in TV revenue. I say usually because in the last 3 years the SEC made more. With the new contract the Big 10 will be making more for now.
But in total revenue (all sources) the SEC is 16 million per school average ahead of the Big 10 and that gap has been growing. In 2018 when the new contract money kicks in for the Big 10 they should be able to narrow that by about 3 million.
Bullet, what you say about Delany getting the ball rolling is true. But, Delany got the ball rolling when he started his own independent network. The rest has been ESPN's reaction to it. The acquisitions of the Old Big East properties for the ACC were part of that reaction. They removed as many potential targets for the Big 10 in the Northeast as they could to keep the BTN from gaining markets and carriage.
And when those targets were secured they realized that the Big 12 would be next so they began forming strategies for securing or acquiring product from the Big 12. The taking of Nebraska caught them by surprise with regard to the timeline and a failed deal with the ACC frustrated them further. The LHN was an attempt to secure Texas. But even then they were more in control of the situation than anyone else. And the were better positioned to be. They were the go to source for valuations on potential additions so they knew what conferences were thinking before anyone else and they controlled the payouts. FOX was around but did not make a significant move until they bought into the BTN. Now it's more complicated.
Slive was telling the truth when he said we won't move unless something big falls into our laps.
But don't confuse then with now. The networks are still in control and now there is a product battle between them. Only the now is changing rapidly as well because new potential rivals are on the horizon and they might force some cooperation between ESPN and FOX in the near term.
Also conferences are more alert than they ever have been. It looks like content is going to be the main driving force moving forward. Markets of course will remain important, but ratings are driven nationally by brand on brand contests. The PAC, SEC, B1G, and now the ACC are more aware than ever before of this.
They aren't sleepy happy little conferences anymore. They know that a significant imbalance can occur if they aren't proactive.
So for the next 3 to 4 years, ahead of the large contract expiration in 2023-5, there will be a short window where FOX and ESPN should both have incentive to work together for their renewals in which the existing situation might be handled more equitably.
If they don't take advantage of that then the next round of realignment is going to be extremely aggressive. The networks and new competitors will make it aggressive, proactive conferences will make it aggressive, and an unstable global political and financial milieu will make it aggressive, and a paradigm shift in the American business model will make it aggressive.
We are fast reaching a point where the only way to boost revenue for the schools will be to either increase the content value, or expand the markets. These things are now handled on the corporate model so growth is assumed. Since 2012 this has come with indexed contracts. So we are now going to sell those G5 games on the schedule for P5 games. But the fastest way to grow will be by adding brands on the perimeter of the existing conference boundaries and multiplying the content value through scheduling.
There are 3 conferences here that are vulnerable. The Big 12 is the most obvious one because they are on the perimeter of 3 different conferences. The ACC is the next because of the monetary disparity and they are on the border of what are perceived as the two most stable conferences. The PAC is the least vulnerable due to geography but even they, because of the monetary disparity, may one day find themselves approached by the Big 10.
And the motivations here are all very specific. The Big 10 needs brands for football and would like to have larger markets.
The SEC want's to protect its branding and status. If the Big 10 tries to expand you are correct that we will have to respond. Brands at risk within our operational sphere would attract our interest. And our operational sphere now includes Texas and Oklahoma, and some might argue Kansas. It definitely includes the ACC South of Virginia and Kentucky. But, the SEC won't move on the ACC for several reasons. One is it occupies space and has schools that we would not take, but enjoy not having our main competitor occupying. ESPN won't pay us more for something they have more cheaply in the ACC, and because they have long been good neighbors with a different focus. But if the ACC is destabilized or threatened then we'll move.
The PAC likes itself and would only expand to generate more revenue, but with schools they actually want, or to defend itself.
The ACC is now more or less hemmed in. They have Connecticut, Cincinnati, and West Virginia as contiguous possibilities. They may not like it, but the Gulf of Mexico may be their friend to break out of their corner. Texas is across that Gulf. If they must build a land bridge there the only avenue West on I10 would be Tulane. It's much simpler to just add a West wing to the ACC. Their problem is that may not be monetarily possible. And to successfully pull it off ESPN will have to want to do it and the SEC will likely be called upon to cooperate in scheduling and possible placement of the Friends of Texas.
So your initial take on the situation is correct. What I feel you are not addressing is the ongoing metamorphosis of the realignment phenomenon and the underlying financial catalyst driving it. Because of those the attitudes and strategies of the conferences and networks are constantly changing.
/
Will there ever be a split among the P5
