Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
How Can More Realignment Occur Without Causing the Networks to Pay Out Too Much?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Transic_nyc Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,401
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 194
I Root For: Return To Stability
Location:
Post: #21
RE: How Can More Realignment Occur Without Causing the Networks to Pay Out Too Much?
(10-14-2017 12:01 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma and T.C.U. would be a very nice foursome. I'm just not thinking we get OU without OSU.

I still think that the ACC should consider leaving N.D. as an independent and adding four as well.

Tulane (New Orleans), T.C.U. (DFW) and Houston would make a
Southern Gulf Division of 6.

Florida State (I-10), Georgia Tech (Direct Flight), Houston (I-10), Miami (Direct Flight), T.C.U. (Direct Flight), Tulane (I-10)

Mid Atlantic:
Clemson, Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest

North Atlantic:
Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

X that adds a tremendous number of households for the ACCN Launch!

Then the SEC could go for either Texa-homa, or Texas, Kansas, and the Oklahomas.

That's two really great 18 team divisions in terms of markets,

I'm not sure how Texsa would lean if it's between the ACC and SEC. From my limited reading, I think they value the Oklahoma rivalry much more than games against TCU. However, I don't know if that includes following them to the SEC. This is where the ACC may have a chance, especially if they can go to a division that includes Miami and Georgia Tech.

The issue with Tulane is whether having that school would be enough to cover the state of Louisiana for the ACC. It's a fine school that has a small fan base. We're going to see how much value Boston College brings to the ACC Network. If they can get a competitive rate in the state of Massachusetts that would tells us whether it's possible to do the same in Louisiana. West Virginia is a no-brainer in terms of generating interest and renewing rivalries in the general footprint. WVU vs NC State, Pitt, Syracuse, Virginia Tech or Clemson would be ratings grabbers.

ACC South: TCU, Texsa, Tulane, Miami, Georgia Tech, Florida State
ACC North: WVU, Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Virginia Tech, Louisville
ACC Classic: Clemson, UNC, NC State, Virginia, Duke, Wake Forest

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, Arkansas
LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Alabama
Vanderbilt, Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky
Auburn, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina
10-14-2017 07:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,888
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #22
RE: How Can More Realignment Occur Without Causing the Networks to Pay Out Too Much?
(10-14-2017 07:37 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(10-14-2017 12:01 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma and T.C.U. would be a very nice foursome. I'm just not thinking we get OU without OSU.

I still think that the ACC should consider leaving N.D. as an independent and adding four as well.

Tulane (New Orleans), T.C.U. (DFW) and Houston would make a
Southern Gulf Division of 6.

Florida State (I-10), Georgia Tech (Direct Flight), Houston (I-10), Miami (Direct Flight), T.C.U. (Direct Flight), Tulane (I-10)

Mid Atlantic:
Clemson, Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest

North Atlantic:
Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

X that adds a tremendous number of households for the ACCN Launch!

Then the SEC could go for either Texa-homa, or Texas, Kansas, and the Oklahomas.

That's two really great 18 team divisions in terms of markets,

I'm not sure how Texsa would lean if it's between the ACC and SEC. From my limited reading, I think they value the Oklahoma rivalry much more than games against TCU. However, I don't know if that includes following them to the SEC. This is where the ACC may have a chance, especially if they can go to a division that includes Miami and Georgia Tech.

The issue with Tulane is whether having that school would be enough to cover the state of Louisiana for the ACC. It's a fine school that has a small fan base. We're going to see how much value Boston College brings to the ACC Network. If they can get a competitive rate in the state of Massachusetts that would tells us whether it's possible to do the same in Louisiana. West Virginia is a no-brainer in terms of generating interest and renewing rivalries in the general footprint. WVU vs NC State, Pitt, Syracuse, Virginia Tech or Clemson would be ratings grabbers.

ACC South: TCU, Texsa, Tulane, Miami, Georgia Tech, Florida State
ACC North: WVU, Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Virginia Tech, Louisville
ACC Classic: Clemson, UNC, NC State, Virginia, Duke, Wake Forest

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, Arkansas
LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Alabama
Vanderbilt, Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky
Auburn, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina

Tulane delivers New Orleans, especially if they are playing in a decent conference which would help them draw more interest in the state. It's also the only true connection to Houston or even DFW in that it fills in the gap between Texas and Florida.

I think that a division of 6 is the only way the ACC could attract Texas.

I do think the SEC would be fine with those two if Texas has headed to the ACC.
10-15-2017 03:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lenvillecards Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,458
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 376
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #23
How Can More Realignment Occur Without Causing the Networks to Pay Out Too Much?
I don't see any benefit for the ACC in taking Tulane. I get the geography connection between Florida & Texas but they would be revenue leach. Memphis would probably fill this role better if a 3rd Texas school isn't wanted (Houston).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
10-15-2017 09:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lenvillecards Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,458
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 376
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #24
How Can More Realignment Occur Without Causing the Networks to Pay Out Too Much?
Why not something like this?

The B1G gets ND but loses Nebraska & stays at 14.

The SEC gets Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Nebraska & Kansas for 18.

The ACC gets Texas, TCU, WV & Houston for 18.

The PAC can grab TT, Baylor, Kansas State & Iowa State if they wish to move into the CTZ.

SEC
West: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Nebraska, Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri

Central: Alabama, Auburn, LSU, A&M, Ole Miss, Miss State

East: Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, SC, Kentucky, Vanderbilt

ACC
South: Texas, TCU, Houston, Miami, Louisville, WF

North: Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC, WV, NC State, VT

Central: FSU, Clemson, GT, NC, Duke, Virginia

B1G
East: Ohio State, ND, Michigan, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland

West: Wisconsin, Michigan State, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
10-15-2017 09:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,232
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #25
RE: How Can More Realignment Occur Without Causing the Networks to Pay Out Too Much?
What we will see is fewer not more schools in P conferences.
Up until Kansas threw a massive amount of money into football upgrades it looked like it would only be Oklahoma, Texas and West Virginia out of the Big 12 to stay in a P conference.
The jury is still out on Kansas to make it in.
10-15-2017 12:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,888
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #26
RE: How Can More Realignment Occur Without Causing the Networks to Pay Out Too Much?
(10-15-2017 12:03 PM)XLance Wrote:  What we will see is fewer not more schools in P conferences.
Up until Kansas threw a massive amount of money into football upgrades it looked like it would only be Oklahoma, Texas and West Virginia out of the Big 12 to stay in a P conference.
The jury is still out on Kansas to make it in.

Well there are three different vantage points on this topic.

1. Value of the school alone. From this vantage point what X is saying is exactly correct.

2. Value of securing a region. If the goal is to get and keep the attention of viewers in an area then one school isn't going to do it. Oklahoma would work for the SEC in that A&M, Missouri, and Arkansas would have a kind of synergy, but that's not what makes Oklahoma the most valuable. You have to keep key schools that Oklahomans love to keep Oklahomans whether they live in state or DFW.

3. Value of obtaining schools from rapidly growing areas. For the SEC it would be either USF or UCF. When my generation starts disappearing from the planet in about 15 to 20 years these schools will be hitting their zenith. UCF already cranks out more alumni than either Florida or Florida State. USF is increasing research funding regularly. When Boomers are gone and generation Y and Millennials are in peak earning years these two schools will be just as valuable as the top two products are in the state now.

Alumni don't live forever. And while it takes many successive years for tradition to be built, the family traditions will just be getting started for these two schools generationally speaking when 2035 rolls around. They don't meet any major conference metrics at this time, but they are both sure bets to do so in the future. They may be the only two G5 schools outside of Houston to be sure bets.

So the way I take things is usually from vantage point #2. What use is Oklahoma if their fans don't buy in. It is why the SEC needs a second Texas school and preferably one that Oklahomans care about playing. It is why we need somebody that Missourians care about playing. And it is why we should strongly consider adding 4 schools if we wish to keep Missouri and Arkansas, and to augment A&M. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and T.C.U. would probably do that.

Nebraska is dying because the Big 10 looked at their addition from vantage point #1. Missouri is suffering because the ESPN and the SEC looked at their addition from vantage point #1. Florida will one day feel a strain as conferences grow and OOC games are harder to schedule because we did not take into consideration just how very important F.S.U. and Miami were to them.

Two schools from one state in different conferences are not an issue today with 3 or 4 OOC games to be played. But make that just 2 OOC games to be played and lining up dates gets tougher. Make it just 1 and it flips competitive balance to have 11 tough conference games and then substitute your homecoming victim in order to keep a fierce rival on the schedule. So it's going to be an issue and Florida and South Carolina realized that last time around when they both pushed for Florida State and Clemson at the presidents meetings.

And X knows this to be true because keeping Duke, UNC, NCSt and Wake together is the biggest reason not to move. Keeping Virginia is the second biggest reason not to move. There is no offer waiting for 4 North Carolina schools from the B1G or SEC.

The problem with raiding from other conferences is that it damages the fabric of relationships. The only way to minimize that is to take from groups that want the promotion. West Virginia and Rutgers will not be damaged. I assure you that Maryland has been. If the Big 10 never takes another ACC school then Maryland will suffer. Texas wanted to drive this point home to A&M so they urged Big 12 schools not to schedule them or Missouri.

To be successful in having taken particularly Missouri we need to add some schools that Missouri folks care about playing. Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma all fill the bill. I we can incorporate that with another Texas schools so that alternating A&M on a schedule puts them in Texas with a game each year that would be best.

If we ever want to raid the ACC we need to look at the needs of present member schools. Georgia Tech, Florida State or Miami, and Clemson would be essential. If we want into North Carolina we will need to take at least 3.

Realignment cannot succeed as the strategic raid of just one valuable school, and probably not just two unless they are both truly connected. Arkansas and South Carolina would have been much more successful sooner and now if they had been taken with schools that were key to their histories.
10-15-2017 01:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,232
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #27
RE: How Can More Realignment Occur Without Causing the Networks to Pay Out Too Much?
(10-15-2017 01:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-15-2017 12:03 PM)XLance Wrote:  What we will see is fewer not more schools in P conferences.
Up until Kansas threw a massive amount of money into football upgrades it looked like it would only be Oklahoma, Texas and West Virginia out of the Big 12 to stay in a P conference.
The jury is still out on Kansas to make it in.

Well there are three different vantage points on this topic.

1. Value of the school alone. From this vantage point what X is saying is exactly correct.

2. Value of securing a region. If the goal is to get and keep the attention of viewers in an area then one school isn't going to do it. Oklahoma would work for the SEC in that A&M, Missouri, and Arkansas would have a kind of synergy, but that's not what makes Oklahoma the most valuable. You have to keep key schools that Oklahomans love to keep Oklahomans whether they live in state or DFW.

3. Value of obtaining schools from rapidly growing areas. For the SEC it would be either USF or UCF. When my generation starts disappearing from the planet in about 15 to 20 years these schools will be hitting their zenith. UCF already cranks out more alumni than either Florida or Florida State. USF is increasing research funding regularly. When Boomers are gone and generation Y and Millennials are in peak earning years these two schools will be just as valuable as the top two products are in the state now.

Alumni don't live forever. And while it takes many successive years for tradition to be built, the family traditions will just be getting started for these two schools generationally speaking when 2035 rolls around. They don't meet any major conference metrics at this time, but they are both sure bets to do so in the future. They may be the only two G5 schools outside of Houston to be sure bets.

So the way I take things is usually from vantage point #2. What use is Oklahoma if their fans don't buy in. It is why the SEC needs a second Texas school and preferably one that Oklahomans care about playing. It is why we need somebody that Missourians care about playing. And it is why we should strongly consider adding 4 schools if we wish to keep Missouri and Arkansas, and to augment A&M. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and T.C.U. would probably do that.

Nebraska is dying because the Big 10 looked at their addition from vantage point #1. Missouri is suffering because the ESPN and the SEC looked at their addition from vantage point #1. Florida will one day feel a strain as conferences grow and OOC games are harder to schedule because we did not take into consideration just how very important F.S.U. and Miami were to them.

Two schools from one state in different conferences are not an issue today with 3 or 4 OOC games to be played. But make that just 2 OOC games to be played and lining up dates gets tougher. Make it just 1 and it flips competitive balance to have 11 tough conference games and then substitute your homecoming victim in order to keep a fierce rival on the schedule. So it's going to be an issue and Florida and South Carolina realized that last time around when they both pushed for Florida State and Clemson at the presidents meetings.

And X knows this to be true because keeping Duke, UNC, NCSt and Wake together is the biggest reason not to move. Keeping Virginia is the second biggest reason not to move. There is no offer waiting for 4 North Carolina schools from the B1G or SEC.

The problem with raiding from other conferences is that it damages the fabric of relationships. The only way to minimize that is to take from groups that want the promotion. West Virginia and Rutgers will not be damaged. I assure you that Maryland has been. If the Big 10 never takes another ACC school then Maryland will suffer. Texas wanted to drive this point home to A&M so they urged Big 12 schools not to schedule them or Missouri.

To be successful in having taken particularly Missouri we need to add some schools that Missouri folks care about playing. Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma all fill the bill. I we can incorporate that with another Texas schools so that alternating A&M on a schedule puts them in Texas with a game each year that would be best.

If we ever want to raid the ACC we need to look at the needs of present member schools. Georgia Tech, Florida State or Miami, and Clemson would be essential. If we want into North Carolina we will need to take at least 3.

Realignment cannot succeed as the strategic raid of just one valuable school, and probably not just two unless they are both truly connected. Arkansas and South Carolina would have been much more successful sooner and now if they had been taken with schools that were key to their histories.


It's hard to turn the clock back, would Missouri and Arkansas be better off now in the Big 12? Probably.
Could the SEC survive as a conference if they expanded to 18 to correct past mistakes? That's the $64,000 question. Once you go down that path (18) and it does not work, a conference can easily ruin almost 100 years of brand building. Now if the SEC can figure out a way to monetize moving Arkansas and Missouri...........
The clock is ticking and that is a problem that will have to be solved before 2022-23 and NOBODY can afford a wrong answer.
10-15-2017 02:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,888
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #28
RE: How Can More Realignment Occur Without Causing the Networks to Pay Out Too Much?
(10-15-2017 02:42 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(10-15-2017 01:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-15-2017 12:03 PM)XLance Wrote:  What we will see is fewer not more schools in P conferences.
Up until Kansas threw a massive amount of money into football upgrades it looked like it would only be Oklahoma, Texas and West Virginia out of the Big 12 to stay in a P conference.
The jury is still out on Kansas to make it in.

Well there are three different vantage points on this topic.

1. Value of the school alone. From this vantage point what X is saying is exactly correct.

2. Value of securing a region. If the goal is to get and keep the attention of viewers in an area then one school isn't going to do it. Oklahoma would work for the SEC in that A&M, Missouri, and Arkansas would have a kind of synergy, but that's not what makes Oklahoma the most valuable. You have to keep key schools that Oklahomans love to keep Oklahomans whether they live in state or DFW.

3. Value of obtaining schools from rapidly growing areas. For the SEC it would be either USF or UCF. When my generation starts disappearing from the planet in about 15 to 20 years these schools will be hitting their zenith. UCF already cranks out more alumni than either Florida or Florida State. USF is increasing research funding regularly. When Boomers are gone and generation Y and Millennials are in peak earning years these two schools will be just as valuable as the top two products are in the state now.

Alumni don't live forever. And while it takes many successive years for tradition to be built, the family traditions will just be getting started for these two schools generationally speaking when 2035 rolls around. They don't meet any major conference metrics at this time, but they are both sure bets to do so in the future. They may be the only two G5 schools outside of Houston to be sure bets.

So the way I take things is usually from vantage point #2. What use is Oklahoma if their fans don't buy in. It is why the SEC needs a second Texas school and preferably one that Oklahomans care about playing. It is why we need somebody that Missourians care about playing. And it is why we should strongly consider adding 4 schools if we wish to keep Missouri and Arkansas, and to augment A&M. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and T.C.U. would probably do that.

Nebraska is dying because the Big 10 looked at their addition from vantage point #1. Missouri is suffering because the ESPN and the SEC looked at their addition from vantage point #1. Florida will one day feel a strain as conferences grow and OOC games are harder to schedule because we did not take into consideration just how very important F.S.U. and Miami were to them.

Two schools from one state in different conferences are not an issue today with 3 or 4 OOC games to be played. But make that just 2 OOC games to be played and lining up dates gets tougher. Make it just 1 and it flips competitive balance to have 11 tough conference games and then substitute your homecoming victim in order to keep a fierce rival on the schedule. So it's going to be an issue and Florida and South Carolina realized that last time around when they both pushed for Florida State and Clemson at the presidents meetings.

And X knows this to be true because keeping Duke, UNC, NCSt and Wake together is the biggest reason not to move. Keeping Virginia is the second biggest reason not to move. There is no offer waiting for 4 North Carolina schools from the B1G or SEC.

The problem with raiding from other conferences is that it damages the fabric of relationships. The only way to minimize that is to take from groups that want the promotion. West Virginia and Rutgers will not be damaged. I assure you that Maryland has been. If the Big 10 never takes another ACC school then Maryland will suffer. Texas wanted to drive this point home to A&M so they urged Big 12 schools not to schedule them or Missouri.

To be successful in having taken particularly Missouri we need to add some schools that Missouri folks care about playing. Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma all fill the bill. I we can incorporate that with another Texas schools so that alternating A&M on a schedule puts them in Texas with a game each year that would be best.

If we ever want to raid the ACC we need to look at the needs of present member schools. Georgia Tech, Florida State or Miami, and Clemson would be essential. If we want into North Carolina we will need to take at least 3.

Realignment cannot succeed as the strategic raid of just one valuable school, and probably not just two unless they are both truly connected. Arkansas and South Carolina would have been much more successful sooner and now if they had been taken with schools that were key to their histories.


It's hard to turn the clock back, would Missouri and Arkansas be better off now in the Big 12? Probably.
Could the SEC survive as a conference if they expanded to 18 to correct past mistakes? That's the $64,000 question. Once you go down that path (18) and it does not work, a conference can easily ruin almost 100 years of brand building. Now if the SEC can figure out a way to monetize moving Arkansas and Missouri...........
The clock is ticking and that is a problem that will have to be solved before 2022-23 and NOBODY can afford a wrong answer.

I think that the SEC should consider (only if the school wished to) letting Missouri, and the Big 10 should do the same for Nebraska, consider letting those two move with Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa State and Kansas to the PAC.

Texas A&M could be secured if we extended a bid to T.C.U. which would help Arkansas as well.

If the PAC doesn't land any schools then the SEC should consider moving to 18 and taking Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and if necessary OSU, if not then ISU. That would do more to solidify a true Western Division than anything and would benefit Missouri and Arkansas, and whether they realized it or not it would also benefit A&M.
10-15-2017 04:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #29
RE: How Can More Realignment Occur Without Causing the Networks to Pay Out Too Much?
(10-15-2017 01:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well there are three different vantage points on this topic.

1. Value of the school alone. From this vantage point what X is saying is exactly correct.

2. Value of securing a region. If the goal is to get and keep the attention of viewers in an area then one school isn't going to do it. Oklahoma would work for the SEC in that A&M, Missouri, and Arkansas would have a kind of synergy, but that's not what makes Oklahoma the most valuable. You have to keep key schools that Oklahomans love to keep Oklahomans whether they live in state or DFW.

3. Value of obtaining schools from rapidly growing areas. For the SEC it would be either USF or UCF. When my generation starts disappearing from the planet in about 15 to 20 years these schools will be hitting their zenith. UCF already cranks out more alumni than either Florida or Florida State. USF is increasing research funding regularly. When Boomers are gone and generation Y and Millennials are in peak earning years these two schools will be just as valuable as the top two products are in the state now.

Alumni don't live forever. And while it takes many successive years for tradition to be built, the family traditions will just be getting started for these two schools generationally speaking when 2035 rolls around. They don't meet any major conference metrics at this time, but they are both sure bets to do so in the future. They may be the only two G5 schools outside of Houston to be sure bets.

So the way I take things is usually from vantage point #2. What use is Oklahoma if their fans don't buy in. It is why the SEC needs a second Texas school and preferably one that Oklahomans care about playing. It is why we need somebody that Missourians care about playing. And it is why we should strongly consider adding 4 schools if we wish to keep Missouri and Arkansas, and to augment A&M. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and T.C.U. would probably do that.

Nebraska is dying because the Big 10 looked at their addition from vantage point #1. Missouri is suffering because the ESPN and the SEC looked at their addition from vantage point #1. Florida will one day feel a strain as conferences grow and OOC games are harder to schedule because we did not take into consideration just how very important F.S.U. and Miami were to them.

Two schools from one state in different conferences are not an issue today with 3 or 4 OOC games to be played. But make that just 2 OOC games to be played and lining up dates gets tougher. Make it just 1 and it flips competitive balance to have 11 tough conference games and then substitute your homecoming victim in order to keep a fierce rival on the schedule. So it's going to be an issue and Florida and South Carolina realized that last time around when they both pushed for Florida State and Clemson at the presidents meetings.

And X knows this to be true because keeping Duke, UNC, NCSt and Wake together is the biggest reason not to move. Keeping Virginia is the second biggest reason not to move. There is no offer waiting for 4 North Carolina schools from the B1G or SEC.

The problem with raiding from other conferences is that it damages the fabric of relationships. The only way to minimize that is to take from groups that want the promotion. West Virginia and Rutgers will not be damaged. I assure you that Maryland has been. If the Big 10 never takes another ACC school then Maryland will suffer. Texas wanted to drive this point home to A&M so they urged Big 12 schools not to schedule them or Missouri.

To be successful in having taken particularly Missouri we need to add some schools that Missouri folks care about playing. Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma all fill the bill. I we can incorporate that with another Texas schools so that alternating A&M on a schedule puts them in Texas with a game each year that would be best.

If we ever want to raid the ACC we need to look at the needs of present member schools. Georgia Tech, Florida State or Miami, and Clemson would be essential. If we want into North Carolina we will need to take at least 3.

Realignment cannot succeed as the strategic raid of just one valuable school, and probably not just two unless they are both truly connected. Arkansas and South Carolina would have been much more successful sooner and now if they had been taken with schools that were key to their histories.

And like a moth to the flame, here I come.

I tend to believe that some balance of all 3 would give us the best results.

If we look at expansion as a long term proposition whereby we prioritize stability and overall strength then I think each approach brings its own merits. In other words, there are schools that meet one set of criteria or even two and so any of them could be good moves as long as we're taking enough of them.

I've started to think the next windfall will have to come from a massive increase in inventory.

I think we may end up making a mistake if we look at it as purely an opportunity to make some extra money with a renegotiated TV contract.
10-15-2017 09:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,888
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #30
RE: How Can More Realignment Occur Without Causing the Networks to Pay Out Too Much?
(10-15-2017 09:51 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(10-15-2017 01:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well there are three different vantage points on this topic.

1. Value of the school alone. From this vantage point what X is saying is exactly correct.

2. Value of securing a region. If the goal is to get and keep the attention of viewers in an area then one school isn't going to do it. Oklahoma would work for the SEC in that A&M, Missouri, and Arkansas would have a kind of synergy, but that's not what makes Oklahoma the most valuable. You have to keep key schools that Oklahomans love to keep Oklahomans whether they live in state or DFW.

3. Value of obtaining schools from rapidly growing areas. For the SEC it would be either USF or UCF. When my generation starts disappearing from the planet in about 15 to 20 years these schools will be hitting their zenith. UCF already cranks out more alumni than either Florida or Florida State. USF is increasing research funding regularly. When Boomers are gone and generation Y and Millennials are in peak earning years these two schools will be just as valuable as the top two products are in the state now.

Alumni don't live forever. And while it takes many successive years for tradition to be built, the family traditions will just be getting started for these two schools generationally speaking when 2035 rolls around. They don't meet any major conference metrics at this time, but they are both sure bets to do so in the future. They may be the only two G5 schools outside of Houston to be sure bets.

So the way I take things is usually from vantage point #2. What use is Oklahoma if their fans don't buy in. It is why the SEC needs a second Texas school and preferably one that Oklahomans care about playing. It is why we need somebody that Missourians care about playing. And it is why we should strongly consider adding 4 schools if we wish to keep Missouri and Arkansas, and to augment A&M. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and T.C.U. would probably do that.

Nebraska is dying because the Big 10 looked at their addition from vantage point #1. Missouri is suffering because the ESPN and the SEC looked at their addition from vantage point #1. Florida will one day feel a strain as conferences grow and OOC games are harder to schedule because we did not take into consideration just how very important F.S.U. and Miami were to them.

Two schools from one state in different conferences are not an issue today with 3 or 4 OOC games to be played. But make that just 2 OOC games to be played and lining up dates gets tougher. Make it just 1 and it flips competitive balance to have 11 tough conference games and then substitute your homecoming victim in order to keep a fierce rival on the schedule. So it's going to be an issue and Florida and South Carolina realized that last time around when they both pushed for Florida State and Clemson at the presidents meetings.

And X knows this to be true because keeping Duke, UNC, NCSt and Wake together is the biggest reason not to move. Keeping Virginia is the second biggest reason not to move. There is no offer waiting for 4 North Carolina schools from the B1G or SEC.

The problem with raiding from other conferences is that it damages the fabric of relationships. The only way to minimize that is to take from groups that want the promotion. West Virginia and Rutgers will not be damaged. I assure you that Maryland has been. If the Big 10 never takes another ACC school then Maryland will suffer. Texas wanted to drive this point home to A&M so they urged Big 12 schools not to schedule them or Missouri.

To be successful in having taken particularly Missouri we need to add some schools that Missouri folks care about playing. Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma all fill the bill. I we can incorporate that with another Texas schools so that alternating A&M on a schedule puts them in Texas with a game each year that would be best.

If we ever want to raid the ACC we need to look at the needs of present member schools. Georgia Tech, Florida State or Miami, and Clemson would be essential. If we want into North Carolina we will need to take at least 3.

Realignment cannot succeed as the strategic raid of just one valuable school, and probably not just two unless they are both truly connected. Arkansas and South Carolina would have been much more successful sooner and now if they had been taken with schools that were key to their histories.

And like a moth to the flame, here I come.

I tend to believe that some balance of all 3 would give us the best results.

If we look at expansion as a long term proposition whereby we prioritize stability and overall strength then I think each approach brings its own merits. In other words, there are schools that meet one set of criteria or even two and so any of them could be good moves as long as we're taking enough of them.

I've started to think the next windfall will have to come from a massive increase in inventory.

I think we may end up making a mistake if we look at it as purely an opportunity to make some extra money with a renegotiated TV contract.

And I think the FBI is about to change the whole dynamic. If Athletic Departments become taxable and if athletes wind up being paid and can endorse merchandise in their own name without displaying school licensed symbols, then we will see the loss of tax deductible contributions to Athletic Departments. The establishment of separate Academic endeavors which will remain tax exempt and will be able to receive tax deductible gifts and the end result will be a strictly business run A.D..

When that happens the concentration on emphasis upon revenue will lead to two developments. 1. Brand on brand competition for ratings. And, 2. Tighter regional groupings for the lowering of overhead expenses.

Another less welcomed outcome of this will be the elimination of Title IX sports. If we are contractually oriented and profit minded Title IX can't be forced upon the Athletic Department.

Now it could be that minor sports like lacrosse, women's soccer, softball, women's basketball, tennis, golf, track & field, swimming & diving, and other such sports might remain tax exempt and under the purview of the school's academic realm. If that's the case then Men's football, basketball, and baseball programs may be the only sports that fall under the purview of the A.D..

Either way brand and regionalism will become crucial. In that world if we have 24 conference schools then look for them to be grouped very regionally.
And also look for lift on the thinking of only having limited schools per state because ad revenue rates are much more favorable when you control a state as opposed to just have a representative in it.

When the tax nature and status of "student athlete" change. Realignment thinking will as well.

I'm thinking a conference aligned like this would be optimum.

North: Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech
East: Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina
South: Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
West: Arkansas, Kansas, L.S.U., Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M
10-15-2017 10:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #31
RE: How Can More Realignment Occur Without Causing the Networks to Pay Out Too Much?
(10-15-2017 10:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-15-2017 09:51 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(10-15-2017 01:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well there are three different vantage points on this topic.

1. Value of the school alone. From this vantage point what X is saying is exactly correct.

2. Value of securing a region. If the goal is to get and keep the attention of viewers in an area then one school isn't going to do it. Oklahoma would work for the SEC in that A&M, Missouri, and Arkansas would have a kind of synergy, but that's not what makes Oklahoma the most valuable. You have to keep key schools that Oklahomans love to keep Oklahomans whether they live in state or DFW.

3. Value of obtaining schools from rapidly growing areas. For the SEC it would be either USF or UCF. When my generation starts disappearing from the planet in about 15 to 20 years these schools will be hitting their zenith. UCF already cranks out more alumni than either Florida or Florida State. USF is increasing research funding regularly. When Boomers are gone and generation Y and Millennials are in peak earning years these two schools will be just as valuable as the top two products are in the state now.

Alumni don't live forever. And while it takes many successive years for tradition to be built, the family traditions will just be getting started for these two schools generationally speaking when 2035 rolls around. They don't meet any major conference metrics at this time, but they are both sure bets to do so in the future. They may be the only two G5 schools outside of Houston to be sure bets.

So the way I take things is usually from vantage point #2. What use is Oklahoma if their fans don't buy in. It is why the SEC needs a second Texas school and preferably one that Oklahomans care about playing. It is why we need somebody that Missourians care about playing. And it is why we should strongly consider adding 4 schools if we wish to keep Missouri and Arkansas, and to augment A&M. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and T.C.U. would probably do that.

Nebraska is dying because the Big 10 looked at their addition from vantage point #1. Missouri is suffering because the ESPN and the SEC looked at their addition from vantage point #1. Florida will one day feel a strain as conferences grow and OOC games are harder to schedule because we did not take into consideration just how very important F.S.U. and Miami were to them.

Two schools from one state in different conferences are not an issue today with 3 or 4 OOC games to be played. But make that just 2 OOC games to be played and lining up dates gets tougher. Make it just 1 and it flips competitive balance to have 11 tough conference games and then substitute your homecoming victim in order to keep a fierce rival on the schedule. So it's going to be an issue and Florida and South Carolina realized that last time around when they both pushed for Florida State and Clemson at the presidents meetings.

And X knows this to be true because keeping Duke, UNC, NCSt and Wake together is the biggest reason not to move. Keeping Virginia is the second biggest reason not to move. There is no offer waiting for 4 North Carolina schools from the B1G or SEC.

The problem with raiding from other conferences is that it damages the fabric of relationships. The only way to minimize that is to take from groups that want the promotion. West Virginia and Rutgers will not be damaged. I assure you that Maryland has been. If the Big 10 never takes another ACC school then Maryland will suffer. Texas wanted to drive this point home to A&M so they urged Big 12 schools not to schedule them or Missouri.

To be successful in having taken particularly Missouri we need to add some schools that Missouri folks care about playing. Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma all fill the bill. I we can incorporate that with another Texas schools so that alternating A&M on a schedule puts them in Texas with a game each year that would be best.

If we ever want to raid the ACC we need to look at the needs of present member schools. Georgia Tech, Florida State or Miami, and Clemson would be essential. If we want into North Carolina we will need to take at least 3.

Realignment cannot succeed as the strategic raid of just one valuable school, and probably not just two unless they are both truly connected. Arkansas and South Carolina would have been much more successful sooner and now if they had been taken with schools that were key to their histories.

And like a moth to the flame, here I come.

I tend to believe that some balance of all 3 would give us the best results.

If we look at expansion as a long term proposition whereby we prioritize stability and overall strength then I think each approach brings its own merits. In other words, there are schools that meet one set of criteria or even two and so any of them could be good moves as long as we're taking enough of them.

I've started to think the next windfall will have to come from a massive increase in inventory.

I think we may end up making a mistake if we look at it as purely an opportunity to make some extra money with a renegotiated TV contract.

And I think the FBI is about to change the whole dynamic. If Athletic Departments become taxable and if athletes wind up being paid and can endorse merchandise in their own name without displaying school licensed symbols, then we will see the loss of tax deductible contributions to Athletic Departments. The establishment of separate Academic endeavors which will remain tax exempt and will be able to receive tax deductible gifts and the end result will be a strictly business run A.D..

When that happens the concentration on emphasis upon revenue will lead to two developments. 1. Brand on brand competition for ratings. And, 2. Tighter regional groupings for the lowering of overhead expenses.

Another less welcomed outcome of this will be the elimination of Title IX sports. If we are contractually oriented and profit minded Title IX can't be forced upon the Athletic Department.

Now it could be that minor sports like lacrosse, women's soccer, softball, women's basketball, tennis, golf, track & field, swimming & diving, and other such sports might remain tax exempt and under the purview of the school's academic realm. If that's the case then Men's football, basketball, and baseball programs may be the only sports that fall under the purview of the A.D..

Either way brand and regionalism will become crucial. In that world if we have 24 conference schools then look for them to be grouped very regionally.
And also look for lift on the thinking of only having limited schools per state because ad revenue rates are much more favorable when you control a state as opposed to just have a representative in it.

When the tax nature and status of "student athlete" change. Realignment thinking will as well.

I'm thinking a conference aligned like this would be optimum.

North: Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech
East: Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina
South: Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
West: Arkansas, Kansas, L.S.U., Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

I like that plan although I think it will be very tough to crack the ACC for a very long time. If the ACCN works then they may have settled into an extended age of prosperity. ESPN will want to keep them together as long as they can at that.

I think our future for the most part lies in the West since we've now tapped that region. ESPN can't use the ACC to take very many of them and so I think it falls to us.

If we look at it as a matter of building inventory then I think this would work...

Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas

This way we thoroughly dominate the state of TX between 4 in-state schools and all the ancillary properties around the region. Two of the most watched products in the region are secured with OU and OSU. Kansas helps consolidate the region as well and makes Mizzou feel more at home.

The travel is reasonable for everyone and the league is large enough so that teams in the East and Central portion aren't forced to travel out West on a regular basis.

Going back to your earlier comments about the up and coming schools, I might even do this...add UCF and USF to create a strong majority in the state of FL as well. Everyone gets more exposure in the state of FL and we get ahead of the inevitable rush on those schools.

That's 22 and I think that might be where I stop. Jackie Sherrill even said once he could see leagues going to 22. I always thought that was a weird number, but think of it this way...

There's no way to divide up 22 schools into 3 or 4 divisions, but you could go old school and just allow teams to basically schedule who they want.

-Start by requiring 9 games
-Require 4 permanent rivals that you play every year.
-Require that the other 5 you play be rotated on a regular basis...let's say that you have to use those games to play at least 10 different teams over the course of 6 years. You're certainly free to play more if you wish. In order to make meeting the requirement easier, you could always get together with one school for a neutral site game if you can't or don't want to make a home and home work.
-Remember how many teams played during Week Zero this year? I suspect that is an experiment to expand the length of the season. I think we may be getting 15 weeks in the not too distant future. That will help with ensuring non-conference rivals can stay on the schedule.
-I also suspect we'll be getting a bigger playoff in the not too distant future and at that point getting rid of the CCG may actually helps us land extra teams into the fray. So don't worry about dividing up into divisions or playing semis or anything.

If the playoff grows then non-conference scheduling will be more important so now we've got 3 games and 2 extra weeks to make it work.
10-16-2017 01:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,888
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #32
RE: How Can More Realignment Occur Without Causing the Networks to Pay Out Too Much?
(10-16-2017 01:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(10-15-2017 10:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-15-2017 09:51 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(10-15-2017 01:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well there are three different vantage points on this topic.

1. Value of the school alone. From this vantage point what X is saying is exactly correct.

2. Value of securing a region. If the goal is to get and keep the attention of viewers in an area then one school isn't going to do it. Oklahoma would work for the SEC in that A&M, Missouri, and Arkansas would have a kind of synergy, but that's not what makes Oklahoma the most valuable. You have to keep key schools that Oklahomans love to keep Oklahomans whether they live in state or DFW.

3. Value of obtaining schools from rapidly growing areas. For the SEC it would be either USF or UCF. When my generation starts disappearing from the planet in about 15 to 20 years these schools will be hitting their zenith. UCF already cranks out more alumni than either Florida or Florida State. USF is increasing research funding regularly. When Boomers are gone and generation Y and Millennials are in peak earning years these two schools will be just as valuable as the top two products are in the state now.

Alumni don't live forever. And while it takes many successive years for tradition to be built, the family traditions will just be getting started for these two schools generationally speaking when 2035 rolls around. They don't meet any major conference metrics at this time, but they are both sure bets to do so in the future. They may be the only two G5 schools outside of Houston to be sure bets.

So the way I take things is usually from vantage point #2. What use is Oklahoma if their fans don't buy in. It is why the SEC needs a second Texas school and preferably one that Oklahomans care about playing. It is why we need somebody that Missourians care about playing. And it is why we should strongly consider adding 4 schools if we wish to keep Missouri and Arkansas, and to augment A&M. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and T.C.U. would probably do that.

Nebraska is dying because the Big 10 looked at their addition from vantage point #1. Missouri is suffering because the ESPN and the SEC looked at their addition from vantage point #1. Florida will one day feel a strain as conferences grow and OOC games are harder to schedule because we did not take into consideration just how very important F.S.U. and Miami were to them.

Two schools from one state in different conferences are not an issue today with 3 or 4 OOC games to be played. But make that just 2 OOC games to be played and lining up dates gets tougher. Make it just 1 and it flips competitive balance to have 11 tough conference games and then substitute your homecoming victim in order to keep a fierce rival on the schedule. So it's going to be an issue and Florida and South Carolina realized that last time around when they both pushed for Florida State and Clemson at the presidents meetings.

And X knows this to be true because keeping Duke, UNC, NCSt and Wake together is the biggest reason not to move. Keeping Virginia is the second biggest reason not to move. There is no offer waiting for 4 North Carolina schools from the B1G or SEC.

The problem with raiding from other conferences is that it damages the fabric of relationships. The only way to minimize that is to take from groups that want the promotion. West Virginia and Rutgers will not be damaged. I assure you that Maryland has been. If the Big 10 never takes another ACC school then Maryland will suffer. Texas wanted to drive this point home to A&M so they urged Big 12 schools not to schedule them or Missouri.

To be successful in having taken particularly Missouri we need to add some schools that Missouri folks care about playing. Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma all fill the bill. I we can incorporate that with another Texas schools so that alternating A&M on a schedule puts them in Texas with a game each year that would be best.

If we ever want to raid the ACC we need to look at the needs of present member schools. Georgia Tech, Florida State or Miami, and Clemson would be essential. If we want into North Carolina we will need to take at least 3.

Realignment cannot succeed as the strategic raid of just one valuable school, and probably not just two unless they are both truly connected. Arkansas and South Carolina would have been much more successful sooner and now if they had been taken with schools that were key to their histories.

And like a moth to the flame, here I come.

I tend to believe that some balance of all 3 would give us the best results.

If we look at expansion as a long term proposition whereby we prioritize stability and overall strength then I think each approach brings its own merits. In other words, there are schools that meet one set of criteria or even two and so any of them could be good moves as long as we're taking enough of them.

I've started to think the next windfall will have to come from a massive increase in inventory.

I think we may end up making a mistake if we look at it as purely an opportunity to make some extra money with a renegotiated TV contract.

And I think the FBI is about to change the whole dynamic. If Athletic Departments become taxable and if athletes wind up being paid and can endorse merchandise in their own name without displaying school licensed symbols, then we will see the loss of tax deductible contributions to Athletic Departments. The establishment of separate Academic endeavors which will remain tax exempt and will be able to receive tax deductible gifts and the end result will be a strictly business run A.D..

When that happens the concentration on emphasis upon revenue will lead to two developments. 1. Brand on brand competition for ratings. And, 2. Tighter regional groupings for the lowering of overhead expenses.

Another less welcomed outcome of this will be the elimination of Title IX sports. If we are contractually oriented and profit minded Title IX can't be forced upon the Athletic Department.

Now it could be that minor sports like lacrosse, women's soccer, softball, women's basketball, tennis, golf, track & field, swimming & diving, and other such sports might remain tax exempt and under the purview of the school's academic realm. If that's the case then Men's football, basketball, and baseball programs may be the only sports that fall under the purview of the A.D..

Either way brand and regionalism will become crucial. In that world if we have 24 conference schools then look for them to be grouped very regionally.
And also look for lift on the thinking of only having limited schools per state because ad revenue rates are much more favorable when you control a state as opposed to just have a representative in it.

When the tax nature and status of "student athlete" change. Realignment thinking will as well.

I'm thinking a conference aligned like this would be optimum.

North: Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech
East: Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina
South: Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
West: Arkansas, Kansas, L.S.U., Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

I like that plan although I think it will be very tough to crack the ACC for a very long time. If the ACCN works then they may have settled into an extended age of prosperity. ESPN will want to keep them together as long as they can at that.

I think our future for the most part lies in the West since we've now tapped that region. ESPN can't use the ACC to take very many of them and so I think it falls to us.

If we look at it as a matter of building inventory then I think this would work...

Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas

This way we thoroughly dominate the state of TX between 4 in-state schools and all the ancillary properties around the region. Two of the most watched products in the region are secured with OU and OSU. Kansas helps consolidate the region as well and makes Mizzou feel more at home.

The travel is reasonable for everyone and the league is large enough so that teams in the East and Central portion aren't forced to travel out West on a regular basis.

Going back to your earlier comments about the up and coming schools, I might even do this...add UCF and USF to create a strong majority in the state of FL as well. Everyone gets more exposure in the state of FL and we get ahead of the inevitable rush on those schools.

That's 22 and I think that might be where I stop. Jackie Sherrill even said once he could see leagues going to 22. I always thought that was a weird number, but think of it this way...

There's no way to divide up 22 schools into 3 or 4 divisions, but you could go old school and just allow teams to basically schedule who they want.

-Start by requiring 9 games
-Require 4 permanent rivals that you play every year.
-Require that the other 5 you play be rotated on a regular basis...let's say that you have to use those games to play at least 10 different teams over the course of 6 years. You're certainly free to play more if you wish. In order to make meeting the requirement easier, you could always get together with one school for a neutral site game if you can't or don't want to make a home and home work.
-Remember how many teams played during Week Zero this year? I suspect that is an experiment to expand the length of the season. I think we may be getting 15 weeks in the not too distant future. That will help with ensuring non-conference rivals can stay on the schedule.
-I also suspect we'll be getting a bigger playoff in the not too distant future and at that point getting rid of the CCG may actually helps us land extra teams into the fray. So don't worry about dividing up into divisions or playing semis or anything.

If the playoff grows then non-conference scheduling will be more important so now we've got 3 games and 2 extra weeks to make it work.

With Texas and A&M not to mention Tech we own the state. Let T.C.U. fall to the ACC or AAC and let ESPN worry about them. At that point we can add Iowa State if we must move to 20. Better attendance, better academics, and a new state.
10-16-2017 02:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,969
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 144
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #33
RE: How Can More Realignment Occur Without Causing the Networks to Pay Out Too Much?
FWIW/With a grain of salt....

Our old buddy @mhver3 came out of semi-retirement to tweet that Nebraska is looking to get out of the B1G and return to the B12. NU's new AD supposedly already chatting with OU to see if it can iron out differences with UT.

He mentions the B12 would be looking for a 12th member, but I would think the conference would be better off staying in a round robin format and allow a West Virginia to leave or boot Baylor.

Anyway, he also said the B1G is looking at expansion candidates to the far west; mentioned Colorado and the PAC specifically.
10-17-2017 02:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,232
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #34
RE: How Can More Realignment Occur Without Causing the Networks to Pay Out Too Much?
(10-17-2017 02:27 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  FWIW/With a grain of salt....

Our old buddy @mhver3 came out of semi-retirement to tweet that Nebraska is looking to get out of the B1G and return to the B12. NU's new AD supposedly already chatting with OU to see if it can iron out differences with UT.

He mentions the B12 would be looking for a 12th member, but I would think the conference would be better off staying in a round robin format and allow a West Virginia to leave or boot Baylor.

Anyway, he also said the B1G is looking at expansion candidates to the far west; mentioned Colorado and the PAC specifically.

Said Neuheisel, a former UCLA quarterback:

I wouldn’t be surprised to see UCLA say, "You know what? This deal with this USC thing? We’re gonna go and be our own guy, rather than always tied to the school here in Los Angeles." It wouldn’t shock me at all. I don’t have any inside information. I’m just saying from outside looking in.
http://www.espn.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id...-to-big-12
10-17-2017 04:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,888
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #35
RE: How Can More Realignment Occur Without Causing the Networks to Pay Out Too Much?
(10-17-2017 02:27 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  FWIW/With a grain of salt....

Our old buddy @mhver3 came out of semi-retirement to tweet that Nebraska is looking to get out of the B1G and return to the B12. NU's new AD supposedly already chatting with OU to see if it can iron out differences with UT.

He mentions the B12 would be looking for a 12th member, but I would think the conference would be better off staying in a round robin format and allow a West Virginia to leave or boot Baylor.

Anyway, he also said the B1G is looking at expansion candidates to the far west; mentioned Colorado and the PAC specifically.

Like the SEC the B1G will not look at heading anywhere they don't already connect to. Colorado would make sense if the Buffaloes weren't tied to the West culturally. If the Big 10 ever expands out of the PAC it will be massive. The old core PAC schools would stick together.

As to Nebraska, I simply don't see them giving up 16 million a year which is how much more they are now making than the Big 12.
(This post was last modified: 10-17-2017 10:59 AM by JRsec.)
10-17-2017 10:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #36
RE: How Can More Realignment Occur Without Causing the Networks to Pay Out Too Much?
Reading MHver3's twitter feed, you'd think he was reading our conversations on this board and just acting like some of it was fact.
10-17-2017 11:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,888
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #37
RE: How Can More Realignment Occur Without Causing the Networks to Pay Out Too Much?
(10-17-2017 11:52 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Reading MHver3's twitter feed, you'd think he was reading our conversations on this board and just acting like some of it was fact.

That's all they've ever done. From what I can tell he mixes our board, Land Thieves, and a few of the twitter guys and then spouts. But there's nothing new. Back in 2010 it was Leather Helmet blog, Frank the Tank, and then what he could cook up with the Dude. They've always sculpted other people's takes into whatever gleaned them hits. The trolling of the WVU & UConn sites was intentionally heavy because all of the readers on those two boards would swarm to their blogs.

Quite frankly I see a lot of the same from Fluguar, although he likes to throw in commentary on everything else under the sun from current events to politics and the weather and twitter means he gets to stop with short pithy comments rather than having to provide links, analysis, or spoken sources other than the invented Big 10 man.

It reminds me of Ralphie on a Christmas Story finally getting his Little Orphan Annie decoder only to find out that Annie's secret message was to drink your Ovaltine!
10-17-2017 12:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lenvillecards Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,458
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 376
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #38
How Can More Realignment Occur Without Causing the Networks to Pay Out Too Much?
(10-17-2017 10:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-17-2017 02:27 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  FWIW/With a grain of salt....

Our old buddy @mhver3 came out of semi-retirement to tweet that Nebraska is looking to get out of the B1G and return to the B12. NU's new AD supposedly already chatting with OU to see if it can iron out differences with UT.

He mentions the B12 would be looking for a 12th member, but I would think the conference would be better off staying in a round robin format and allow a West Virginia to leave or boot Baylor.

Anyway, he also said the B1G is looking at expansion candidates to the far west; mentioned Colorado and the PAC specifically.

Like the SEC the B1G will not look at heading anywhere they don't already connect to. Colorado would make sense if the Buffaloes weren't tied to the West culturally. If the Big 10 ever expands out of the PAC it will be massive. The old core PAC schools would stick together.

As to Nebraska, I simply don't see them giving up 16 million a year which is how much more they are now making than the Big 12.


If it happened I think it would be something like this:

Cal, Stanford, Washington, Oregon & Colorado to the B1G.

Nebraska, Arizona, UCLA, USC, Utah & Arizona State to the B12.

WV moves to the ACC with ND or with TCU to the SEC if ND remains independent.

TCU plus 1 to the SEC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
10-19-2017 09:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Win5002 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 618
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 31
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #39
RE: How Can More Realignment Occur Without Causing the Networks to Pay Out Too Much?
(10-17-2017 10:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-17-2017 02:27 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  FWIW/With a grain of salt....

Our old buddy @mhver3 came out of semi-retirement to tweet that Nebraska is looking to get out of the B1G and return to the B12. NU's new AD supposedly already chatting with OU to see if it can iron out differences with UT.

He mentions the B12 would be looking for a 12th member, but I would think the conference would be better off staying in a round robin format and allow a West Virginia to leave or boot Baylor.

Anyway, he also said the B1G is looking at expansion candidates to the far west; mentioned Colorado and the PAC specifically.

Like the SEC the B1G will not look at heading anywhere they don't already connect to. Colorado would make sense if the Buffaloes weren't tied to the West culturally. If the Big 10 ever expands out of the PAC it will be massive. The old core PAC schools would stick together.

As to Nebraska, I simply don't see them giving up 16 million a year which is how much more they are now making than the Big 12.

If the B1G could pull in the right contingent of PAC teams including USC you can't tell me they would have to be contingent at that point. Yes it would be nice but the California market would be too valuable. Los Angeles with USC (maybe USC & UCLA, San Fran with Stanford (maybe Cal too), throw in Seattle with Washington, Phoenix with ASU. They would let contingent state rule go by the wayside for that. West coast live content at 9:30/10 CST for the B1G network for football and bball would be a nice feature. Even if they started on the spill over channel and joined in progress.
10-23-2017 12:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Win5002 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 618
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 31
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #40
RE: How Can More Realignment Occur Without Causing the Networks to Pay Out Too Much?
(10-19-2017 09:42 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  
(10-17-2017 10:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-17-2017 02:27 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  FWIW/With a grain of salt....

Our old buddy @mhver3 came out of semi-retirement to tweet that Nebraska is looking to get out of the B1G and return to the B12. NU's new AD supposedly already chatting with OU to see if it can iron out differences with UT.

He mentions the B12 would be looking for a 12th member, but I would think the conference would be better off staying in a round robin format and allow a West Virginia to leave or boot Baylor.

Anyway, he also said the B1G is looking at expansion candidates to the far west; mentioned Colorado and the PAC specifically.

Like the SEC the B1G will not look at heading anywhere they don't already connect to. Colorado would make sense if the Buffaloes weren't tied to the West culturally. If the Big 10 ever expands out of the PAC it will be massive. The old core PAC schools would stick together.

As to Nebraska, I simply don't see them giving up 16 million a year which is how much more they are now making than the Big 12.


If it happened I think it would be something like this:

Cal, Stanford, Washington, Oregon & Colorado to the B1G.

Nebraska, Arizona, UCLA, USC, Utah & Arizona State to the B12.

WV moves to the ACC with ND or with TCU to the SEC if ND remains independent.

TCU plus 1 to the SEC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If the PAC was split up I think you have the wrong destinations, the B1G would get the first picks. Most of the existing schools lock in their instate rival as a non-conference game and you have 4 really good leagues.

B1G/Big 12
USC/UCLA
Stanford/CAL
ASU/AZ
Wash/WSU
OREGON/Colorado (these could flip either way)
***Nebraska, Oregon St. & Utah to the Big 12.
10-23-2017 12:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.