(05-28-2018 10:37 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  ='Stugray2' pid='15317955' dateline='1527487956']
What is important about 7 years is the GOR ends, and 5 years out a school is likely to start negotiating their next contract location. And we all have a >90% belief OU is going to leave. (As discussed many times, power conferences expansion only takes one school per state, as you need to maximize reach, recruiting, and return ... so oSu wont be going with OU.) Gee is almost certainly referring to OU.

SMUmustangs said:
Nice post. However, I disagree with your statement that power conference expansion takes only one school per state. The SEC would take both Texas and Tech in a heartbeat. They also would most likely take OU and OSU as a pair. (JRsec has explained the rationale for this many times.) The PAC would also very likely jump at the chance to get Texas, Tech, OU and OSU.
[/quote]
And I say:

Yeah, under the subscription fee market footprint model 1 school per state was a gestalt. However, in a content driven marketplace brand identity and following are more important. And piggybacking with that emphasis is the need to control advertising rates in particularly large regional markets. A conference taking Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State are guaranteed a regional lineup of at least 2 games but most likely 4 weekly that can be one of the only ways to reach 32 million potential viewers on Saturday provided the games kickoff at different times.

This is even more important to ESPN since they hold the rights to Tulsa, Houston, S.M.U. and A&M through different media contracts in their possession. If they go hard after, and land, the aforementioned foursome they control all avenues into any of the larger schools in that 2 state region. That's 8 opportunities on most Saturdays to tap that potential 32 million providing that the only avenue to advertisers must run through the Mouse to get there.

Networks used the 1 school to one state theory to bust up the conferences' leverage over large states (Texas, Florida, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and they tried their best in 2010 to pry schools away from Virginia and North Carolina to break that conference monopoly).

Oklahoma and Texas are the only two schools besides Ohio State that have a WSJ valuation of business impact upon their regions that exceeds 1 Billion dollars. Alabama is very close to being the 4th. Both are national brands and would tip the balance of potential revenue in favor the conference that could land either or both of them. If it is both there isn't enough value among any potential remaining schools outside of the SEC and Big 10 that could theoretically make up the difference (the California 4 would be the only exception).

If the Big 10 or SEC land just one of them it is virtually incumbent for the losing conference to land the other in order for either to stay competitive with the other. If the conferences not gaining either one of them are the ACC and PAC there will be for decades to come a significant difference in earning potential with the PAC and ACC being hamstrung in that regard by 8 figures.

If balance is what you are looking for in college football and you believe that revenue has a lot to do with that then optimally you could pray for Oklahoma / Oklahoma State / Kansas and Kansas State to head to the PAC and for Texas and one other Texas pal to head to the ACC. If that happens we will have the closest thing to a revenue balance that we are likely to ever see in college sports.

So would the SEC offer Oklahoma State to land Oklahoma? I think they would. With Oklahoma in the fold the SEC has a much larger draw in DFW, a historic national brand that has draw all the way to California, and the impact would likely cement the SEC in the top position moving forward. OSU which bounces between 4th and 5th most valuable product in the Big 12 would be a small price to pay for that kind of leverage moving forward. If that move attracted Texas and Texas Tech then it's as Dandy Don once serenaded, "Turn out the lights the party's over!"

The same is true if the Big 10 could land them both. So no I don't believe it will be one school to one state, especially now that the cable model is entering a period of past peak performance with only a steady decline in sight as Boomers and X'ers shuffle off to their heavenly reward over the next 20 to 30 years, and that isn't even taking into account the rapid advance of new technology in delivery systems, or changing tastes in athletics. But for the Big 10 the moves would be much more complex as they would likely have to try to attract just Oklahoma and Texas with no political baggage of other non AAU state schools (and remember OU is not AAU either). So working with a Kansas as a neighbor and long time conference mate of OU and using old rival Nebraska is their best play.

Now the academic side of the matter still favors the state flagship only. And Stugray2's argument is still valid with that consideration. So I don't see every conference going after a 2nd state school. But Texas, Florida, and possibly North Carolina and Virginia could easily be exceptions should realignment be directed at those states. Yes Oklahoma is a state of 4 million people roughly, but they are so married to the North Texas market that it is really more like 15 million and that's worth a 2nd especially if it then becomes an overwhelmingly enticing lure for something even bigger. No doubt that a lot of conferences would look very different if conferences members were re-selected today, and yes the 1 school per state rule of thumb would probably switch a bunch of things up. But California, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas/Oklahoma and Virginia would not be among them.

This is a great idea and strategy by CUSA. Kudos.

I believe a scheduling partnership of The SEC, Notre Dame and The ACC with Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and WVU coming over from The Big 12 would be the best thing to happen to college athletics in a long time. Simply slotting the four newcomers into The ACC & SEC and building schedules from both conferences would be the best of both worlds.

Imagine a November basketball double header with Kansas, Duke, North Carolina, and Kentucky to start the day with a football double header of Alabama vs Miami and Texas vs Notre Dame to end the day.

I will take that everyday over some of the early season basketball and out of conference snoozers we see now.
CJ

(05-28-2018 11:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If the Big 10 or SEC land just one of them it is virtually incumbent for the losing conference to land the other in order for either to stay competitive with the other. If the conferences not gaining either one of them are the ACC and PAC there will be for decades to come a significant difference in earning potential with the PAC and ACC being hamstrung in that regard by 8 figures.

If balance is what you are looking for in college football and you believe that revenue has a lot to do with that then optimally you could pray for Oklahoma / Oklahoma State / Kansas and Kansas State to head to the PAC and for Texas and one other Texas pal to head to the ACC. If that happens we will have the closest thing to a revenue balance that we are likely to ever see in college sports.

100%.

College football is on its current trajectory going to wind up a sport of limited regional interest, and this would be rapidly accelerated by OU or UT joining the SEC.

In a rising tide floats all boats model, I think there are two things that are essential to ensuring the long term health of college athletics:
1) Regional balance/representation.
2) Restoration of historical rivalries.

The P4 with UT to ACC and OU to PAC would sort of fill requirement 1, but wouldn’t address #2.

IMO, the best solution for college sports is a P3 where the PAC, BigXII, and ACC are all killed and a 3rd conference is created by shuffling to realign along historical matchups.

Start by restoring the key rivalries of the Big8/SWC in conference 3:
Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas.
Balance that division with the core rivalries of the PAC in UW, UO, Stanford, Cal, USC, and UCLA. Fill in the rest with AZ, ASU, Utah, TTU, OSU, ISU, KSU.

Top off the B1G with the northern parts of the ACC and top off the SEC with the southern parts. You wind up with a regionally balanced P3 with historic rivalries intact. At somewhere between 54 (3x18) or 60 (3x20) you get a slight reduction in mouths to feed while increasing the overall value of the product. It’s an immediate financial winner for everyone in the P3 and would be stabilizing in the long term.

(05-28-2018 07:44 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  One small point, the Big 12 is not being paid for 12 schools with just 10. What happened after they lost members was FOX and ESPN agreed to keep payments the same even with 10 and no championship as that was pretty much what was required to save the league.

Since then though, the Big 12 has signed new contracts. The networks are paying what they thought the conference was worth at that time.

Yeah, the paying 10 as if it was 12 thing was a one year or so deal that also had a near expiring fox deal that was signed before the market for tier 2 was reset by the BTN. They basically decided they wouldn’t slash a deal that was dramatically undervalued as it was.

This little saying has been repeated incorrectly ever since. Thanks for also helping clarify.

(05-28-2018 05:10 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Someone should ask Gordon why The Big 12 hasn't extended its GOR.

IIRC the GOR is tied to tv deal compensation so if you don’t want to extend the current tv deal without seeing what other networks might pay you wouldn’t extend it. I remember many of the realignment chatter mentioning that a GOR without consideration (payment) could be vulnerable in court.

I'm missing something, so perhaps I need to get all learned up. By what metric(s) are either PAC12 or ACC struggling?

(05-30-2018 09:39 AM)PDNJ Wrote:  I'm missing something, so perhaps I need to get all learned up. By what metric(s) are either PAC12 or ACC struggling?

I assume some are referring to media revenue as compared to the B10 and SEC.

Frankly as a alum/fan of a school in the AAC (which only gets less than $2M per school from media revenue), I'd love for my alma mater to have the same problems that the schools in the PAC12 and ACC are having-- or even a hint of it.

It may not be so much about the top two schools in Oklahoma, Kansas, and a few other states, MUST be in the same conferences, relatively. Rather, state politics-wise, the powers that be, don't want the situation of one school moving to an improved situation, and the sister school is left in an even more diminished conference or forced to accept placement in another conference that is distinctly inferior.

The other concern is, if separated by conference, will they remain able to schedule each other regularly in the spectrum of sports offered? A couple of major conferences may not be as accommodating/flexible as the SEC & ACC have been on this matter. Going to nine conference games may make it a bit tougher with scheduling, but still possible. Some in-state rivalry games in fb may have to move to an earlier point in the season. Some fans that are traditional oriented, won't like that until they get use to it.

Hypothetically, as an example, if OU went to the SEC, and near the same time, oSu heads to the PAC12 with a Texas-based group, State of Oklahoma interests may embrace that as long as the rivalry games are assured to be continued as OOCs.

(05-30-2018 11:28 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  state politics-wise

With states' funding of public insitutions continuing to fall, the implied governments' threats to reduce funding if ... gets hollower every year.

I think I remember, from years ago now, CU saying they were down to 6% state funding. Some were suggesting that they go private.

(05-30-2018 09:39 AM)PDNJ Wrote:  I'm missing something, so perhaps I need to get all learned up. By what metric(s) are either PAC12 or ACC struggling?

1. Gross Total Revenue
2. TV Revenue
3. Attendance of events

I could see Texas and Oklahoma aligning with the best of the Pac -
in that case Kansas likely goes to B1G (as it moves to 16) - its an AAU school that fits their profile - the football wouldn't be as hard.

The Pac probably takes Texas, TTCH and Oklahoma. TCU and OSU probably go to the SEC. KSU is SOL.

(05-28-2018 10:24 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-27-2018 12:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  No P4 member wants to join the B12

No one wants to go there as the league is currently aligned because Texas and OU keep sending dog whistles to other conferences. But if the B12 were to attract a couple of other P5 schools, would Texas and OU then recommit to the league, making the league instantly stable?

What's new? UT and OU are the two reasons they lost four schools... so far.

(05-30-2018 12:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 09:39 AM)PDNJ Wrote:  I'm missing something, so perhaps I need to get all learned up. By what metric(s) are either PAC12 or ACC struggling?

1. Gross Total Revenue
2. TV Revenue
3. Attendance of events

4. Perception.

At least the Pac-12 is the king of the West Coast and it’s mostly flagship/land grant institutions with two prestigious private schools and it’s far enough from the next P5. The ACC is surrounded by the two giants: the B1G and SEC and its full of irrelevant schools (e.g. Boston College).

(05-30-2018 01:20 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 12:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 09:39 AM)PDNJ Wrote:  I'm missing something, so perhaps I need to get all learned up. By what metric(s) are either PAC12 or ACC struggling?

1. Gross Total Revenue
2. TV Revenue
3. Attendance of events

4. Perception.

At least the Pac-12 is the king of the West Coast and it’s mostly flagship/land grant institutions with two prestigious private schools and it’s far enough from the next P5. The ACC is surrounded by the two giants: the B1G and SEC and its full of irrelevant schools (e.g. Boston College).

I don’t think “irrelevant” is the right word. The ACC is a Frankenstein’s monster of schools that don’t mesh too well.

(05-30-2018 02:07 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 01:20 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 12:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 09:39 AM)PDNJ Wrote:  I'm missing something, so perhaps I need to get all learned up. By what metric(s) are either PAC12 or ACC struggling?

1. Gross Total Revenue
2. TV Revenue
3. Attendance of events

4. Perception.

At least the Pac-12 is the king of the West Coast and it’s mostly flagship/land grant institutions with two prestigious private schools and it’s far enough from the next P5. The ACC is surrounded by the two giants: the B1G and SEC and its full of irrelevant schools (e.g. Boston College).

I don’t think “irrelevant” is the right word. The ACC is a Frankenstein’s monster of schools that don’t mesh too well.

Exactly.

(05-30-2018 01:20 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 12:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 09:39 AM)PDNJ Wrote:  I'm missing something, so perhaps I need to get all learned up. By what metric(s) are either PAC12 or ACC struggling?

1. Gross Total Revenue
2. TV Revenue
3. Attendance of events

4. Perception.

At least the Pac-12 is the king of the West Coast and it’s mostly flagship/land grant institutions with two prestigious private schools and it’s far enough from the next P5. The ACC is surrounded by the two giants: the B1G and SEC and its full of irrelevant schools (e.g. Boston College).

I don’t think “irrelevant” is the right word. The ACC is a Frankenstein’s monster of schools that don’t mesh too well.

(05-27-2018 09:15 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  It’s too bad the Big 12 couldn’t swing FSU/GT/Clemson/Miami as was rumored several years back. That truly would have been a better conference than the current ACC

I'm not sure how on the table that was versus those schools using the Big 12 as leverage against the ACC for a better deal. But the Big 12 at 14 with a combo of FSU, GT, Clemson, and Miami, would have been a strong competitor to the Big 10 and SEC. I think the balance of the conferences would have been slightly better as well. The ACC would continue to exist as a strong coastal conference and could have picked up UCONN and Cincy to fill out to 12. Their football might take a hit but the remaining schools wouldn't really care since everyone left is a basketball first school sans Virginia Tech. The ACC would then match the Pac in membership and the coasts would be balanced.

Oh well. Just another scenario in the hundreds of alternative realignment histories.

(05-30-2018 03:43 PM)Baylorbears11 Wrote:  

(05-27-2018 09:15 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  It’s too bad the Big 12 couldn’t swing FSU/GT/Clemson/Miami as was rumored several years back. That truly would have been a better conference than the current ACC

I'm not sure how on the table that was versus those schools using the Big 12 as leverage against the ACC for a better deal. But the Big 12 at 14 with a combo of FSU, GT, Clemson, and Miami, would have been a strong competitor to the Big 10 and SEC. I think the balance of the conferences would have been slightly better as well. The ACC would continue to exist as a strong coastal conference and could have picked up UCONN and Cincy to fill out to 12. Their football might take a hit but the remaining schools wouldn't really care since everyone left is a basketball first school sans Virginia Tech. The ACC would then match the Pac in membership and the coasts would be balanced.

Oh well. Just another scenario in the hundreds of alternative realignment histories.

I do wonder if the XII went to 12 with Miami, Florida St, Georgia Tech, and Clemson, if Virginia Tech would want to come along. West Virginia may have been a good #14 then. Or perhaps #14 would’ve been TCU.

Notre Dame sealed The Big 12's fate when it chose The ACC. The idea that The Big 12 ever had a real shot at Clemson or Florida State is a message board myth. Big 12 leadership knew it. That's why they offered Notre Dame and the Irish said Thanks but No Thanks.

The ONLY programs The Big 12 has ever had any leverage with are those still stuck in The Big East / American. Gee is trying to rally The Big 12 troops one more time with little more than a 10th of share of a conference welfare check written for 12 teams with a little no expansion incentive sprinkled on top.

The three items listed above two of which include TV revenue will be addressed come August as all ACC Network facilities are scheduled to be completed. Listing attendance as a problem for The ACC alone is somewhat disingenuous. Attendance across college athletics is down everywhere, on average, including in the college football crazy SEC.

Many programs are reducing the size of their facilities backseat of attendance, for example, UK has already reduced the size of its football stadium and in the process of reducing the size of Rupp Arena. Again to label attendance as an ACC problem only is a message board fantasy.
CJ