(02-07-2018 08:30 AM)ken d Wrote: There is one alternative that hasn't been discussed here. Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC, either alone or with two little brothers, is destabilizing on several fronts.
The first, and most obvious, is that it essentially relegates the Big 12 to G6 status. Second, it creates a huge, powerful conference in an SEC in which several heavyweights are likely to knock each other out of championship contention. Maybe that means either Oklahoma or Alabama to the CFP instead of potentially both.
How about this alternative? What if OU and UT both go indy in football, provided that the Big 12 will give them both a Notre Dame type deal in which they each play five B12 opponents a year and leave all their other sports in the B12? The B12 could add a ninth team, say Houston, to give them a balanced 4/4 football schedule and a 20 game double round robin in basketball.
OU plays Oklahoma State every year, plus four other B12 opponents, 2 home/2 away. Texas plays Texas Tech every year, plus the other four B12 opponents. Every B12 team thus gets both OU and UT home and away once every four years. Maybe these 10 OOC games are enough for the B12 to keep its P5 status (albeit with a financial haircut that would be less than the buzz cut they would get if they lost them both to the SEC).
Here's the cherry on top. Both OU and UT join ND with indy contracts with NBC, and the three of them play each other every year. UT steals a page from ND's book, and schedules both UCLA and Cal every year, putting them in that talent rich state every year. OU similarly schedules Arkansas and LSU. Now, all of them have a CFP worthy schedule, and all get the same deal from the CFP and NY6. If NBC were to also bring BYU under their umbrella, they could potentially fill a 3PM and 7PM time slot every week of the season with games of national interest. And they don't have to pay any deadwood to get it.
BTW, this arrangement also has room for UT and OU to renew their rivalries with Texas A&M and Nebraska. If I'm NBC, I'm encouraging the hell out of that.
As long as we are speculating.... With OU and UT off the table and the B12 locked into a long term deal, does that put an end to P5 realignment?
Absolutely not.
First of all I don't think ESPN cares about balance as much as they care about holding the rights to OU and UT.
If both went independent what they would have is a deuce difficult time of scheduling late in the season. The SEC would simply turn it's eyes toward the East again whether that came in 2033 for 2035, or when they decided in 2034 to put their whole package up to the highest bidder. If we are out from under the ESPN umbrella then offering ACC schools won't be an issue any longer. If it's brands we need we will go after Clemson and Florida State. If it should be markets we want we would go after the states of North Carolina and Virginia.
If OKlahoma and Texas go indy then look for ESPN to push hard for the Big 10 contract rights. If they landed them the smartest play they would have is to permit the Big 10 and SEC to both grow out of the ACC. The rivalry between the Big 10 and SEC is an untapped bonanza except for post season play. IF you have the two giants of the P5 in your pocket you increase the value of the ACC holdings by putting them under the better brand names.
If balance was the issue then ESPN should buy the PACN and move 7 Big 12 schools West and encourage the PAC to make peace with B.Y.U..
Then if the SEC really wants a second Texas school they would be forced to look at T.C.U. and if the Frogs had to have a travel partner then West Virginia would still be there. So if the networks paid us for those two it would be possible.
Otherwise what we would have is a PAC 20, SEC 14, Big 10 14, and ACC at 14.5.
What that move would accomplish is keeping the SEC or Big 10 from really outpacing everyone else and would bring the PAC closer in line with the top 2. But, what else it would do is perpetually confine the ACC to last place, and by a fairly wide margin. I can't imagine that would be very stable past the GOR.
To achieve balance we need to move to a P3. If the PAC absorbs the Big 12 then the Big 10 and SEC will eventually absorb most of the ACC.
If the ACC and SEC both grow to 20 out of the Big 12 that means that eventually the PAC/B1G grow to 24 either outright or in essence with a cooperative agreement.
If FOX sells the BTN to Amazon, or another competitor, then look for that company to go hard after the PACN. And look for ESPN to push early to acquire the whole Big 12 and the best way to do it would be to absorb all 10 into the SEC and ACC. There are some major advantages for ESPN by doing this.
IF ESPN pushes in 2024 for a majority stake in the Big 10 then look for the Big 12 to the PAC to become more viable, but that would ultimately be bad news for a Skipperless ESPN who would now have its bread buttered in the SEC and its biscuits sopped in the Big 10.
Folks tend to forget that there are corporate objectives here as well as conference ones and that the corporate objectives tend to trump some of the conference objectives.
But the imbalance between the SEC/B1G and the PAC/ACC is too large there to ever be a relative balance between a P4. If balance is what we want a P3 would be essential to obtain as close of an approximation to balance as we could hope to have.
As things stand now the Big 10 and SEC will earn in the 40 million range in TV Revenue with the Big 10 hitting 50 soon. But the Big 12 is in the mid 30's and the PAC and ACC haven't hit 30 yet. The relative difference there is immense.
The SEC has an estimated economic impact (WSJ numbers) of over 7 billion. The Big 10 has an impact of over 5 billion, the Big 12 one of over 3 billion, the PAC over 2 billion and the ACC under 2 billion. You can't balance those numbers by sticking with 4 conferences.
Venue size and attendance has the SEC in the lead by 11,500 people per event over the Big 10 who averages 66,000 per game. The drop off then goes to 57,000 for the Big 12, to 50,100 for the PAC to 49,900 for the ACC. Without attendance going significantly up for the lower 3 there can never be balance. Most programs earn more off of attendance, donations for tickets, and concessions and merchandise than they ever do from TV revenue.
So simply saying that by letting OU and UT have independent status we could have more balance actually changes none of the current inequity which has only been safeguarded by the G.O.R.'s.
With the Big 10 earning 51.1 at the same time the SEC is expected to be at 46 when the GOR's run out first in the Big 12, and then in 2033 the buyout is low enough for ACC schools to give notice, I would hardly call these circumstances stable.
If I'm the ACC commissioner I would be pushing ESPN hard to help us land some of the Big 12 ahead of the ACC GOR expiration. If I'm the commissioner of the SEC I would be pushing ESPN hard for Oklahoma because with the Sooners you get an anchor for the Western division that enables Auburn and Alabama to shift East. If Texas came along with them fine, but they aren't needed. With L.S.U. and A&M still in the West there is plenty of branding to support that division even if we took only the Oklahoma pair.
Adding OU increases the SEC economic impact within its region to 9 billion and makes us uncatchable in regards to that kind of clout. It also gives us major penetration into DFW and Texas as a whole when coupled with A&M.
This notion that you can have too many brands is a canard. All indications are that eventually advertising rates will be based on actual viewers and not just potential ones. Brand on brand competition will command higher rates and with it higher pay. If we move to a P4 world the chances of Oklahoma making a playoff are no worse than they are now.
If they win the 10 team Big 12 they still have to face a Florida State/Clemson, an Alabama, or an Ohio State to make the finals. In the SEC they would be facing a school of that caliber in the CCG anyway. But in the SEC they would be connected to better recruiting grounds and make a helluva lot more money in the process. The same is true for the Big 10.
The ACC and PAC are too remote for the Sooner's fans and they can't pay enough to land them.
So Ken D the whole notion of balance is a specious concept to begin with. We are far from balance now. But having the top 2 conferences take the best of the 3rd place conference isn't going to give you more balance, but rather it will increase the divide. Having UT and OU go independent doesn't change the playing field an iota's worth other than to decrease the leverage of OU and UT and make the other 8 schools in the Big 12 poorer, and all while not appreciably helping OU and UT who will likely earn less. Notre Dame right now isn't making what the ACC pays out for media rights but at least it's very close for them.
So the Big 12 will need assistance in a move to the PAC if we want to keep the Big 10 and SEC from growing stronger by 2024. That move at leasts holds the SEC and Big 10 at status quo until 2033 when the ACC will be on the menu.
Or, ESPN can become proactive and absorb the Big 12 into the SEC and ACC and pay the ACC a rate that will close the gap. They looked at doing that in 2010-1. They should look at it again. They should strongly consider giving Texas its own division and adding them to the ACC and should take a look at doing the same for Oklahoma in the SEC. By moving both conferences to 20 they can dissolve the Big 12 early, before the entrance of a well funded competitor into the college sports market (and they can do that now since they hold the T3 rights to the Big 12 by virtue of the FOX purchase and since they own the LHN) and then renegotiate the SEC and ACC contracts and extend their expiration dates.
By absorbing the Big 12 they will own the rights to every school of note from Virginia over to Missouri and Kansas and down to the Rio Grande and as far west as Lubbock. All of those states would be an advertising monopoly for college sports. That kind of leverage means better ad rates. There would be between the SEC and ACC 8 games of interest in Texas every week where 28 million viewers reside. I count Oklahoma and Oklahoma State in that 8 school total because of their draw in DFW. So when they are involved the market potential balloons to 32 million between the two states depending upon which Texas school they are playing.
By having Iowa State, and Kansas to go along with Kentucky and Louisville, Syracuse, Pittsburgh and West Virginia all added to Notre Dame then ESPN has a back door into all of the major Big 10 cities save for Minneapolis/St.Paul and Madison.
If they didn't hold the rights to anyone but those 40 schools they will have the 1st and 3rd highest drawing collection of schools now playing in the largest footprint (the ACC) and they still have games of interest playing in most Big 10 cities.
The play for ESPN should be to absorb the Big 12 so that they own the rights to 8 of the top 10 grossing schools, 15 of the top 25, and have hands down the best lineup of Spring & Summer sports. Baseball, Softball, Basketball, Gymnastics and Olympic and Country Club sports are all either extremely competitive nationally or dominate their respective sports. And demographically speaking the largest number of recruits hands down comes from the region comprised by the ACC/SEC/B12 right now. And as sports popularity dwindles on the West Coast that gives ESPN the hammer on these live events for the foreseeable future.
They shouldn't be worried about balance. They should be worried about securing the best draws and the most competitive product.