Caveat - I don't want this to happen, but it could play out this way.

If media revenue continues to grow at very high rates, I could see the next major round of expansion being initiated by subsets of PAC and ACC groups leaving their traditional alliances. This sort of change would not occur until the mid-2030s:

1) B1G first expands to 20 teams - UCLA, USC, Stanford, Washington, California and ND (or Oregon). Five or 6 western programs in the expanded B1G allows for travel partners and better Olympic sport scheduling. USC and UCLA would be the likely leaders of this move to the B1G.
2) SEC then expands to 20 teams - FSU, UNC, Duke and Clemson (or UVa). FSU would be the leader of this move...and it happens only if the B1G expands to 20 teams with ND.
3) ACC & PAC merge conference operations and divide into two semi-autonomous 10 team divisions (with some B12 backfill) -
Eastern - UVa (or Clemson), Va Tech, NC State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, Wake and BC.
Western - Oregon, ASU, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Ore State, WSU, Kansas, Ok State and TCU

The remaining B12 would pick-up schools from both the MWC and AAC in order to remain an Autonomous conference.

It's the rapid growth in media revenue that is forcing the expansion of conferences.

I will speak only on the PAC.

I agree with most everything you have said, I might put the chances in the 40% range of expansion but I think 30% is fare.

One addition to your list of schools though needs to be Houston. R1 university, Big city, 201-300 ARWU ranking, 3rd largest University in the state of Texas, and has real upside on the basketball court and football field. IMO, they should be number 3 on the list of candidates, behind only Kansas and Oklahoma State.

It will be interesting to see how the PAC's TV contract pans out in a few years. "IF" they decide to add schools it will be in that time frame.

I do think that Kansas and Mizzou end up as the B1G's #15 and #16.

(10-22-2021 01:56 PM)XLance Wrote:  I do think that Kansas and Mizzou end up as the B1G's #15 and #16.

I sincerely believe that Mizzou has zero interest in the B1G. Kansas is another story though, and I am sure that they would jump if offered. However, does the B1G really want Kansas?? I believe that is a legitimate question to ask here.
Does adding Kansas add a rivalry for the B1G?? Believe it or not, yes, it does, in basketball. Kansas used to have a rivalry with Nebraska, so there's that.
Does adding Kansas add a significant market for the B1G??? Kansas City isn't a shrimp, but it is not a "DFW," which the SEC just added.
Does Kansas have a big fan base in its own state??? In basketball, yes. For football, that following is practically microscopic, IMO.

Click the link, and then type in Kansas Jayhawks. Then compare to K-State.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/col...ket-sales/

(10-24-2021 12:43 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(10-22-2021 01:56 PM)XLance Wrote:  I do think that Kansas and Mizzou end up as the B1G's #15 and #16.

I sincerely believe that Mizzou has zero interest in the B1G. Kansas is another story though, and I am sure that they would jump if offered. However, does the B1G really want Kansas?? I believe that is a legitimate question to ask here.
Does adding Kansas add a rivalry for the B1G?? Believe it or not, yes, it does, in basketball. Kansas used to have a rivalry with Nebraska, so there's that.
Does adding Kansas add a significant market for the B1G??? Kansas City isn't a shrimp, but it is not a "DFW," which the SEC just added.
Does Kansas have a big fan base in its own state??? In basketball, yes. For football, that following is practically microscopic, IMO.

Click the link, and then type in Kansas Jayhawks. Then compare to K-State.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/col...ket-sales/

A legitimate question.
The B1G would take Kansas because they are a "brand". Even though it is in basketball, Kansas has won the last umpteen Big 12 basketball championships against some very good competition and is regarded as a "blue blood" in one of the two top income producing sports.
Kansas is an AAU school which the B1G seems to covet. They are a traditional rival of Nebraska (which needs some identity help in the west). And lastly Kansas and Missouri define the boundaries of what we commonly refer to as the mid-west, and the B1G has always thought of themselves as a mid-western conference.

It is interesting to ponder which school the SEC would target to replace Missouri, if they were to leave to take a spot in the B1G.
My top four contenders would be: Oklahoma State, Louisville, West Virginia and University of South Florida.

I posted this on the UConn board...

If the media considers the Big 12 a P5 league after the moves are made...
I am starting to warm on the idea of quietly putting our name in the hat if the league further expands to 14. I thoroughly enjoy being in the Big East for Olympic sports, and I enjoy our football schedule, but I feel that our reluctance to reach out to the Big 12 this go around was due to the fact that we didn't think it would continue to be a power league. If it does continue to be a power league (like the Big East was post-Miami) and they do decide to expand, I think we should entertain a move.

The only viable candidates in my opinion would be the following:
UConn
Boise State
Memphis
USF
SMU
Colorado State

Each of the six has its worts but I think ultimately if we make a push it would be us and USF.

I don't think the league will stomach Boise State and Memphis academically. There is a reason both got left behind.

SMU is in the same footprint as TCU. Unless Texas politics come into play, I don't see it.

Colorado State just doesn't move the needle nationally.

That leaves us and USF. We both have played in a power league before. We would be the best school academically in the league, and the league's footprint would further push eastward.
We arguably have the best athletic department of anybody either in the league or as a candidate, and we have proven we can win in football in a power league.

West: BYU, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Oklahoma State, Iowa State
East: UConn, WVU, Cincy, UCF, USF, Kansas, Kansas State

(10-24-2021 10:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-24-2021 12:43 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(10-22-2021 01:56 PM)XLance Wrote:  I do think that Kansas and Mizzou end up as the B1G's #15 and #16.

I sincerely believe that Mizzou has zero interest in the B1G. Kansas is another story though, and I am sure that they would jump if offered. However, does the B1G really want Kansas?? I believe that is a legitimate question to ask here.
Does adding Kansas add a rivalry for the B1G?? Believe it or not, yes, it does, in basketball. Kansas used to have a rivalry with Nebraska, so there's that.
Does adding Kansas add a significant market for the B1G??? Kansas City isn't a shrimp, but it is not a "DFW," which the SEC just added.
Does Kansas have a big fan base in its own state??? In basketball, yes. For football, that following is practically microscopic, IMO.

Click the link, and then type in Kansas Jayhawks. Then compare to K-State.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/col...ket-sales/

A legitimate question.
The B1G would take Kansas because they are a "brand". Even though it is in basketball, Kansas has won the last umpteen Big 12 basketball championships against some very good competition and is regarded as a "blue blood" in one of the two top income producing sports.
Kansas is an AAU school which the B1G seems to covet. They are a traditional rival of Nebraska (which needs some identity help in the west). And lastly Kansas and Missouri define the boundaries of what we commonly refer to as the mid-west, and the B1G has always thought of themselves as a mid-western conference.

It is interesting to ponder which school the SEC would target to replace Missouri, if they were to leave to take a spot in the B1G.
My top four contenders would be: Oklahoma State, Louisville, West Virginia and University of South Florida.

Why X, we would move to 18 with Duke, UNC & UVa.

Barring that:
Missouri is essentially holding the slot once offered to FSU.
South Carolina holds the slot once intended for Clemson.
Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas A&M are all now in the fold.

That said I certainly see a major upside for South Florida. The Gulf Coast location in an area of Florida the Gators don't reach in full, and it opens up even more Southerly recruiting plus the market of Tampa / St Pete, and the potential for cruise football weekends between Austin (Corpus Christi), Baton Rouge (New Orleans), Mobile, and Tampa/St Pete which are tremendous business opportunities. Tie in Biloxi and the potential for synergistic revenue is huge for Disney and the SEC. Besides if there is a conference out there who could take a flyer on a work in progress it's the SEC. And USF's research is growing nicely.

I still like 18 in 3 regional divisions with a best at large for conference semis, but alas I don't think we are headed there. We may be headed instead for 6 conferences of 16. If Missouri wanted to leave I think a lot more dominoes would fall than the ACC would like.

(10-24-2021 11:34 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-24-2021 10:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-24-2021 12:43 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(10-22-2021 01:56 PM)XLance Wrote:  I do think that Kansas and Mizzou end up as the B1G's #15 and #16.

I sincerely believe that Mizzou has zero interest in the B1G. Kansas is another story though, and I am sure that they would jump if offered. However, does the B1G really want Kansas?? I believe that is a legitimate question to ask here.
Does adding Kansas add a rivalry for the B1G?? Believe it or not, yes, it does, in basketball. Kansas used to have a rivalry with Nebraska, so there's that.
Does adding Kansas add a significant market for the B1G??? Kansas City isn't a shrimp, but it is not a "DFW," which the SEC just added.
Does Kansas have a big fan base in its own state??? In basketball, yes. For football, that following is practically microscopic, IMO.

Click the link, and then type in Kansas Jayhawks. Then compare to K-State.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/col...ket-sales/

A legitimate question.
The B1G would take Kansas because they are a "brand". Even though it is in basketball, Kansas has won the last umpteen Big 12 basketball championships against some very good competition and is regarded as a "blue blood" in one of the two top income producing sports.
Kansas is an AAU school which the B1G seems to covet. They are a traditional rival of Nebraska (which needs some identity help in the west). And lastly Kansas and Missouri define the boundaries of what we commonly refer to as the mid-west, and the B1G has always thought of themselves as a mid-western conference.

It is interesting to ponder which school the SEC would target to replace Missouri, if they were to leave to take a spot in the B1G.
My top four contenders would be: Oklahoma State, Louisville, West Virginia and University of South Florida.

Why X, we would move to 18 with Duke, UNC & UVa.

Barring that:
Missouri is essentially holding the slot once offered to FSU.
South Carolina holds the slot once intended for Clemson.
Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas A&M are all now in the fold.

That said I certainly see a major upside for South Florida. The Gulf Coast location in an area of Florida the Gators don't reach in full, and it opens up even more Southerly recruiting plus the market of Tampa / St Pete, and the potential for cruise football weekends between Austin (Corpus Christi), Baton Rouge (New Orleans), Mobile, and Tampa/St Pete which are tremendous business opportunities. Tie in Biloxi and the potential for synergistic revenue is huge for Disney and the SEC. Besides if there is a conference out there who could take a flyer on a work in progress it's the SEC. And USF's research is growing nicely.

I still like 18 in 3 regional divisions with a best at large for conference semis, but alas I don't think we are headed there. We may be headed instead for 6 conferences of 16. If Missouri wanted to leave I think a lot more dominoes would fall than the ACC would like.

JR, you and I both know that right now the SEC is complete enough to stay on top of the college football world well into the future.
I just can't see 18 for at least the next 10-15 years. Two schools are hard to digest, three additional would certainly cause dissention, especially when dealing with very large egos.
A single replacement for Missouri is an entirely different story if made a few years down the road.
USF would actually be the perfect add for the SEC. I love Florida (they should have joined the ACC in the 70's) but they just can't carry the entire state. It would be of tremendous value for the SEC to have a second school in Florida for multiple reasons that we have discussed many times before.
I think you are stuck with South Carolina. Their fans actually believe that they belong.
Missouri, truthfully fit in the Big 8 and nowhere else. They won't ever do anything to enhance the SEC and wouldn't really be a big loss if they left.
Once ESPN has all of the other pieces in place (which they seem to be at this point) I really see the Tigers, primarily for the sake of re-building their enrollment, moving which will then allow the SEC the flexibility to add USF.

We saw a bunch of P5 realignment in 2010-12 heading into the last round of TV deals/playoff negotiations.

Then nothing for 9 years. There may be a few more moves in store as the next TV and playoff deals are negotiated, but it will settle down again after that.

Most likely move?

Pac 12 expands into Texas and perhaps Oklahoma with Big 12 schools. 29M people in Texas, compared to 68M in current Pac 12 footprint. Expands the TV/recruiting reach by 40%.

(10-24-2021 01:39 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  We saw a bunch of P5 realignment in 2010-12 heading into the last round of TV deals/playoff negotiations.

Then nothing for 9 years. There may be a few more moves in store as the next TV and playoff deals are negotiated, but it will settle down again after that.

Most likely move?

Pac 12 expands into Texas and perhaps Oklahoma with Big 12 schools. 29M people in Texas, compared to 68M in current Pac 12 footprint. Expands the TV/recruiting reach by 40%.

Problem is that the two biggest brands in Texas are in the SEC already. The Pac-12 probably commands a majority of those 68M. With the teams available to them, they won't get anywhere near 29M of the Texas fans (neither will the Big 10 if they pursued TCU, Texas Tech, Baylor, or Houston).

The people who have the answers to this question work at the TV networks. They will let the conferences know whether the existing members of the conference would make more TV money per-school by expanding, and how much, and which new teams would generate that money.

Craig Thompson said last week that he had regular, “if not daily”, discussions with the Mountain West TV partners before the MWC decided to not add any of the teams in Texas that they were considering.

All the other conferences do the same.

And if they don’t speak directly to the TV guys, they have a consultant on retainer who talks to execs at ESPN or Fox or wherever, so that if push comes to shove they can deny that ESPN or Fox directly told them to do something.

I think things have ground to a standstill among the big boys. No one can realistically add any value programs.

The PAC 12 only has Big 12 schools to consider and they are looking at low population states or 3rd or 4th fiddle Texas programs that are ill-fitted institutionally with the bulk of the PAC 12.

The ACC can’t make a move that doesn’t include ND as a full member. I think it was JR that suggested that they could add some recruiting hotbeds as enticement but I’m not sure that’s enough.

The Big 10 is really only going to act if they can get ND. The power brokers of the PAC 12 and ACC are too high maintenance and would require too many companions to make their additions profitable.

That leaves us at the SEC. They could complete their fine set of Southern football superpowers if it weren’t for that pesky ACC GOR. No more movement happens until the SEC makes a move or the Irish commit to a conference.

(10-24-2021 08:45 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think things have ground to a standstill among the big boys. No one can realistically add any value programs.

The PAC 12 only has Big 12 schools to consider and they are looking at low population states or 3rd or 4th fiddle Texas programs that are ill-fitted institutionally with the bulk of the PAC 12.

The ACC can’t make a move that doesn’t include ND as a full member. I think it was JR that suggested that they could add some recruiting hotbeds as enticement but I’m not sure that’s enough.

The Big 10 is really only going to act if they can get ND. The power brokers of the PAC 12 and ACC are too high maintenance and would require too many companions to make their additions profitable.

That leaves us at the SEC. They could complete their fine set of Southern football superpowers if it weren’t for that pesky ACC GOR. No more movement happens until the SEC makes a move or the Irish commit to a conference.

1. If GOR's were ironclad I don't think Texas and Oklahoma would have gone public. Changing laws and relationships have opened that window.

2. XLance and you have not placed into consideration or raised the dilemma of a 40 million dollar revenue gap between the SEC / Big 10 and the ACC. I don't see key schools leaving well over a half billion in revenue on the table over the 12 years following 2023.

3. I see hoops doubling revenue by heading independent of the NCAA.

4. The economic hangover of 2 years of COVID 19 and the decline of Boomers in the market only places more economic burden on the schools.

So when those matters are satisfied I'll agree that things are drawing to a close for awhile. It's just that we aren't there and won't be for the foreseeable future.

The SEC and Big 10 positions are stable and they don't need to expand. Their question is what will they do if prominent brands just come knocking? I think we both know that answer and I think the B1G is under a little more pressure to say yes than the SEC which would also certainly listen. And if not to the schools then certainly to the networks.

(10-25-2021 01:34 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-24-2021 08:45 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think things have ground to a standstill among the big boys. No one can realistically add any value programs.

The PAC 12 only has Big 12 schools to consider and they are looking at low population states or 3rd or 4th fiddle Texas programs that are ill-fitted institutionally with the bulk of the PAC 12.

The ACC can’t make a move that doesn’t include ND as a full member. I think it was JR that suggested that they could add some recruiting hotbeds as enticement but I’m not sure that’s enough.

The Big 10 is really only going to act if they can get ND. The power brokers of the PAC 12 and ACC are too high maintenance and would require too many companions to make their additions profitable.

That leaves us at the SEC. They could complete their fine set of Southern football superpowers if it weren’t for that pesky ACC GOR. No more movement happens until the SEC makes a move or the Irish commit to a conference.

1. If GOR's were ironclad I don't think Texas and Oklahoma would have gone public. Changing laws and relationships have opened that window.

2. XLance and you have not placed into consideration or raised the dilemma of a 40 million dollar revenue gap between the SEC / Big 10 and the ACC. I don't see key schools leaving well over a half billion in revenue on the table over the 12 years following 2023.

3. I see hoops doubling revenue by heading independent of the NCAA.

4. The economic hangover of 2 years of COVID 19 and the decline of Boomers in the market only places more economic burden on the schools.

So when those matters are satisfied I'll agree that things are drawing to a close for awhile. It's just that we aren't there and won't be for the foreseeable future.

The SEC and Big 10 positions are stable and they don't need to expand. Their question is what will they do if prominent brands just come knocking? I think we both know that answer and I think the B1G is under a little more pressure to say yes than the SEC which would also certainly listen. And if not to the schools then certainly to the networks.

It seems as if the idea of Texas and Oklahoma going Public has backfired in that the Big 12 is still standing.
In short order the remnants of the Big 12 quickly put together some "backfill" that will serve that conference for years to come. At the same time it stuck a pin in the balloon that was the AAC. The Big 12 now has assumed the role of the "tweener" conference (higher than a G but just a little less than a P).

If hoops revenue doubles it would help any conference increase revenue and help reduce what ever future pending "gap" there may be in revenue between conferences.

Would any brand really knock on the B1G's door? Do we know what the financial situation with the BTN really is? What monies are they actually distributing to their members, and are they still trying to extract and equity stake out of any new member?

What school could actually afford to join the SEC and compete (even with the additional media income)?
An old expansion/realignment guru once stated that a conference should never expand with a school who's attendance wasn't equal to or greater than the conference average.
So which schools could join the SEC and be competitive? Out of the ACC that list would be short with only Clemson and Notre Dame that are qualified (based on 2019 figures) with Florida State as a potential). The only other P5 schools that could meet that standard are all in the B1G (none from the PAC or additional Big 12 school would qualify). The other "potential" SEC candidates would either have to have a large stadium or access to a pro stadium with a large potential fan base to qualify (Cincinnati and USF come to mind).

I do think that the ACC and B1G will expand to 16, but only to meet the playoff format standard that the SEC will set when they move to 4 team pods. At this point I think the PAC would follow with 4 three team pods.

We'll see. The only other significant movement possible would be if Notre Dame decided to join the ACC or (if the contract with the ACC couldn't/wouldn't hold up) another conference.

I would be curious to know how Clemson's recent fall from the summit of college football affects people's thinking about what the SEC might do. I think many fans thought Florida State's decline was a temporary phenomenon, and presumed that the pair of Clemson and FSU was a no brainer for the SEC. While FSU might still be attractive to the SEC because of their location, would a good, but not dominant, Clemson program be a sure thing? Personally, I doubt it.

The Tigers wouldn't add any markets the SEC doesn't already dominate. They don't have a hoops program on the same level as FSU. And in an SEC East bolstered by the addition of Alabama and Auburn, Clemson might almost seem ordinary.

So if the ACC is going to be vulnerable, I'm inclined to think that UNC, Duke and Virginia (and they would have to be viewed as a set) would be the most attractive candidates for the SEC, who really don't need any more football powers.

(10-25-2021 09:19 AM)ken d Wrote:  I would be curious to know how Clemson's recent fall from the summit of college football affects people's thinking about what the SEC might do. I think many fans thought Florida State's decline was a temporary phenomenon, and presumed that the pair of Clemson and FSU was a no brainer for the SEC. While FSU might still be attractive to the SEC because of their location, would a good, but not dominant, Clemson program be a sure thing? Personally, I doubt it.

The Tigers wouldn't add any markets the SEC doesn't already dominate. They don't have a hoops program on the same level as FSU. And in an SEC East bolstered by the addition of Alabama and Auburn, Clemson might almost seem ordinary.

So if the ACC is going to be vulnerable, I'm inclined to think that UNC, Duke and Virginia (and they would have to be viewed as a set) would be the most attractive candidates for the SEC, who really don't need any more football powers.

IMO, Clemson is in an awkward spot in conference alignment. Clemson has strong football and finances, but not the other intangibles that initiate realignment selections. They don’t have the research heft that the B1G usually covets; they don’t bring a new nor big market that the SEC could leverage. Football and finances are strong enough to make Clemson revenue neutral to the SEC, but that makes them a complementary (the even-numbered add to a bigger whale) addition.

Schools like Kansas (for the B12) and Oregon (for the PAC) were/are in the most comparable positions. It appears that Kansas was loyal to the original B12 and they are now going to be left competing in a lower tiered conference. All the major brand football programs, as well as most of the AAU schools, have now left the B12. Kansas has become the leader of the B12 at the same time that it would openly welcome an invitation to any other P4 conference.

Clemson’s best options are to strengthen the ACC (especially football) and to stay close to FSU. If FSU leaves, Clemson probably wants to be the realignment partner. Fortunately for Clemson, the strength of football in the South has allowed them to build a lot of brand value for the school. The affiliation with Notre Dame (in addition with the FSU partnership) also provides good benefits.

From the perspective of the SEC, the addition of Oklahoma and Texas already dampened the need for additional football-first expansion. Desire for FSU and Clemson was reduced because of the recent additions. Realignment is not about whether a school is actually winning the national championship…it’s more about the potential, and Texas (as well as Oklahoma, FSU and Clemson) has repeatedly demonstrated potential. The fact that Clemson doesn’t have an elite football team this year shouldn’t make much difference.

(10-25-2021 09:19 AM)ken d Wrote:  I would be curious to know how Clemson's recent fall from the summit of college football affects people's thinking about what the SEC might do. I think many fans thought Florida State's decline was a temporary phenomenon, and presumed that the pair of Clemson and FSU was a no brainer for the SEC. While FSU might still be attractive to the SEC because of their location, would a good, but not dominant, Clemson program be a sure thing? Personally, I doubt it.

The Tigers wouldn't add any markets the SEC doesn't already dominate. They don't have a hoops program on the same level as FSU. And in an SEC East bolstered by the addition of Alabama and Auburn, Clemson might almost seem ordinary.

So if the ACC is going to be vulnerable, I'm inclined to think that UNC, Duke and Virginia (and they would have to be viewed as a set) would be the most attractive candidates for the SEC, who really don't need any more football powers.

Well Ken there are SEC motives and there are ESPN motives. The two intersect at the point of branding and market reach. So what does that mean?

It means that if ESPN is going to pay out shares costing 76.5 million each they are going to have to go to schools which by themselves deliver a greater synergy to the value of their top product. It also has implications for other revenue sports. So if basketball is going to be monetized and W/L records balanced between football and basketball to keep both premier sports balanced in a synergy that connects across viewing markets there needs to be a mutual benefit to both the top football and hoops programs outside of sports. That balance is to be found in top state flagships and academics within the greater South having a more formal association.

So why am I mentioning academics at this juncture? Because in an SEC that includes Texas its place in the priorities is elevated by the kinds of associations that Texas, A&M, Florida, Missouri, and yes Vanderbilt want to strengthen and which are supported by a handful of others within the conference.

It would likely be supported by ESPN in that keeping 100% of the rights to 3 top hoops programs and augmenting must see games with Kentucky would be seen as a boon, and it would free up the rest of the ACC to pursue schools which raise the football profile and therefore the value of the conference to the viewing public.

Which conference would benefit the most at this point from 3 hoops brands? The SEC. Which conference would benefit the most from football additions? The ACC. Which conferences are 100% Disney? Which conferences now dominate the holdings over the most prime athletic recruiting grounds in the nation? Yep, the SEC and ACC.

What would the SEC be worth year round to Disney if Duke, Kansas, North Carolina, and Virginia joined Kentucky in the SEC? It's not just about football brands, or just about basketball brands. It's about total casual fan name recognition.

What does the SEC see in it for them? Balance athletically, in revenue production, in academics, and in seasonal prominence in the Big 3 men's sports.

Duke, North Carolina and Virginia are solid baseball programs as well.

Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Duke, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia

So it's not inconceivable. ESPN has never really wanted to relent on Clemson and FSU because they anchor the value, along with Louisville for the ACC in football. ESPN can build a more compelling product around those and Ga Tech, N.C. State, Miami, and Va Tech, especially if there is resurgence in Pitt and Syracuse. And the won't get the blowback from the UNC/Duke crowd. UNC/Duke/UVa are now in a conference with 6 other AAU programs where they represent political clout in the 1 area they should, academics, and they do it without having to join a Northern Conference.

ESPN has the hoops synergy of Kansas, Kentucky, Duke, North Carolina, and Virginia along with solid supporting brands in Florida, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and hot teams which rise from the ranks to keep it interesting. The have the synergy in football of Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, A&M, LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, and Tennessee in football. And baseball would be off the charts.

Duke, UVa, and UNC would have Texas and Florida with which to pursue a myriad of Olympic Sports with while the rest of the ACC could dial back on some of the numerous offerings to better fund Football and Basketball and keep Baseball strong.

So ESPN builds 2 better conferences out of it's 2 fully owned rights deals. And they wait on natural forces to coalesce the rest.

(10-25-2021 11:23 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-25-2021 09:19 AM)ken d Wrote:  I would be curious to know how Clemson's recent fall from the summit of college football affects people's thinking about what the SEC might do. I think many fans thought Florida State's decline was a temporary phenomenon, and presumed that the pair of Clemson and FSU was a no brainer for the SEC. While FSU might still be attractive to the SEC because of their location, would a good, but not dominant, Clemson program be a sure thing? Personally, I doubt it.

The Tigers wouldn't add any markets the SEC doesn't already dominate. They don't have a hoops program on the same level as FSU. And in an SEC East bolstered by the addition of Alabama and Auburn, Clemson might almost seem ordinary.

So if the ACC is going to be vulnerable, I'm inclined to think that UNC, Duke and Virginia (and they would have to be viewed as a set) would be the most attractive candidates for the SEC, who really don't need any more football powers.

Well Ken there are SEC motives and there are ESPN motives. The two intersect at the point of branding and market reach. So what does that mean?

It means that if ESPN is going to pay out shares costing 76.5 million each they are going to have to go to schools which by themselves deliver a greater synergy to the value of their top product. It also has implications for other revenue sports. So if basketball is going to be monetized and W/L records balanced between football and basketball to keep both premier sports balanced in a synergy that connects across viewing markets there needs to be a mutual benefit to both the top football and hoops programs outside of sports. That balance is to be found in top state flagships and academics within the greater South having a more formal association.

So why am I mentioning academics at this juncture? Because in an SEC that includes Texas its place in the priorities is elevated by the kinds of associations that Texas, A&M, Florida, Missouri, and yes Vanderbilt want to strengthen and which are supported by a handful of others within the conference.

It would likely be supported by ESPN in that keeping 100% of the rights to 3 top hoops programs and augmenting must see games with Kentucky would be seen as a boon, and it would free up the rest of the ACC to pursue schools which raise the football profile and therefore the value of the conference to the viewing public.

Which conference would benefit the most at this point from 3 hoops brands? The SEC. Which conference would benefit the most from football additions? The ACC. Which conferences are 100% Disney? Which conferences now dominate the holdings over the most prime athletic recruiting grounds in the nation? Yep, the SEC and ACC.

What would the SEC be worth year round to Disney if Duke, Kansas, North Carolina, and Virginia joined Kentucky in the SEC? It's not just about football brands, or just about basketball brands. It's about total casual fan name recognition.

What does the SEC see in it for them? Balance athletically, in revenue production, in academics, and in seasonal prominence in the Big 3 men's sports.

Duke, North Carolina and Virginia are solid baseball programs as well.

Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Duke, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia

So it's not inconceivable. ESPN has never really wanted to relent on Clemson and FSU because they anchor the value, along with Louisville for the ACC in football. ESPN can build a more compelling product around those and Ga Tech, N.C. State, Miami, and Va Tech, especially if there is resurgence in Pitt and Syracuse. And the won't get the blowback from the UNC/Duke crowd. UNC/Duke/UVa are now in a conference with 6 other AAU programs where they represent political clout in the 1 area they should, academics, and they do it without having to join a Northern Conference.

ESPN has the hoops synergy of Kansas, Kentucky, Duke, North Carolina, and Virginia along with solid supporting brands in Florida, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and hot teams which rise from the ranks to keep it interesting. The have the synergy in football of Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, A&M, LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, and Tennessee in football. And baseball would be off the charts.

Duke, UVa, and UNC would have Texas and Florida with which to pursue a myriad of Olympic Sports with while the rest of the ACC could dial back on some of the numerous offerings to better fund Football and Basketball and keep Baseball strong.

So ESPN builds 2 better conferences out of it's 2 fully owned rights deals. And they wait on natural forces to coalesce the rest.

It may look good on paper, but it just isn't going to happen.
If ESPN wants more value out of Kentucky, they will just have to move them into the ACC, not the other way around.
And Texas.......if they wanted academic associations, they should have joined the ACC and not cozied up to those good ole boys from Birmingham. They made their bed, now they will have to endure the consequences.

(10-25-2021 12:12 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-25-2021 11:23 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-25-2021 09:19 AM)ken d Wrote:  I would be curious to know how Clemson's recent fall from the summit of college football affects people's thinking about what the SEC might do. I think many fans thought Florida State's decline was a temporary phenomenon, and presumed that the pair of Clemson and FSU was a no brainer for the SEC. While FSU might still be attractive to the SEC because of their location, would a good, but not dominant, Clemson program be a sure thing? Personally, I doubt it.

The Tigers wouldn't add any markets the SEC doesn't already dominate. They don't have a hoops program on the same level as FSU. And in an SEC East bolstered by the addition of Alabama and Auburn, Clemson might almost seem ordinary.

So if the ACC is going to be vulnerable, I'm inclined to think that UNC, Duke and Virginia (and they would have to be viewed as a set) would be the most attractive candidates for the SEC, who really don't need any more football powers.

Well Ken there are SEC motives and there are ESPN motives. The two intersect at the point of branding and market reach. So what does that mean?

It means that if ESPN is going to pay out shares costing 76.5 million each they are going to have to go to schools which by themselves deliver a greater synergy to the value of their top product. It also has implications for other revenue sports. So if basketball is going to be monetized and W/L records balanced between football and basketball to keep both premier sports balanced in a synergy that connects across viewing markets there needs to be a mutual benefit to both the top football and hoops programs outside of sports. That balance is to be found in top state flagships and academics within the greater South having a more formal association.

So why am I mentioning academics at this juncture? Because in an SEC that includes Texas its place in the priorities is elevated by the kinds of associations that Texas, A&M, Florida, Missouri, and yes Vanderbilt want to strengthen and which are supported by a handful of others within the conference.

It would likely be supported by ESPN in that keeping 100% of the rights to 3 top hoops programs and augmenting must see games with Kentucky would be seen as a boon, and it would free up the rest of the ACC to pursue schools which raise the football profile and therefore the value of the conference to the viewing public.

Which conference would benefit the most at this point from 3 hoops brands? The SEC. Which conference would benefit the most from football additions? The ACC. Which conferences are 100% Disney? Which conferences now dominate the holdings over the most prime athletic recruiting grounds in the nation? Yep, the SEC and ACC.

What would the SEC be worth year round to Disney if Duke, Kansas, North Carolina, and Virginia joined Kentucky in the SEC? It's not just about football brands, or just about basketball brands. It's about total casual fan name recognition.

What does the SEC see in it for them? Balance athletically, in revenue production, in academics, and in seasonal prominence in the Big 3 men's sports.

Duke, North Carolina and Virginia are solid baseball programs as well.

Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Duke, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia

So it's not inconceivable. ESPN has never really wanted to relent on Clemson and FSU because they anchor the value, along with Louisville for the ACC in football. ESPN can build a more compelling product around those and Ga Tech, N.C. State, Miami, and Va Tech, especially if there is resurgence in Pitt and Syracuse. And the won't get the blowback from the UNC/Duke crowd. UNC/Duke/UVa are now in a conference with 6 other AAU programs where they represent political clout in the 1 area they should, academics, and they do it without having to join a Northern Conference.

ESPN has the hoops synergy of Kansas, Kentucky, Duke, North Carolina, and Virginia along with solid supporting brands in Florida, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and hot teams which rise from the ranks to keep it interesting. The have the synergy in football of Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, A&M, LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, and Tennessee in football. And baseball would be off the charts.

Duke, UVa, and UNC would have Texas and Florida with which to pursue a myriad of Olympic Sports with while the rest of the ACC could dial back on some of the numerous offerings to better fund Football and Basketball and keep Baseball strong.

So ESPN builds 2 better conferences out of it's 2 fully owned rights deals. And they wait on natural forces to coalesce the rest.

It may look good on paper, but it just isn't going to happen.
If ESPN wants more value out of Kentucky, they will just have to move them into the ACC, not the other way around.
And Texas.......if they wanted academic associations, they should have joined the ACC and not cozied up to those good ole boys from Birmingham. They made their bed, now they will have to endure the consequences.

Ha! Texas made the call. They're fine. The SEC is fine. We aren't the ones with an uncomfortable bed and a bad pillow. And yes, it looks good on paper and we won't be the only ones noticing that. It's all but over X. As Everett says in "Oh Brother Where Art Thou", my paraphrase, "Damn, you're in a tight spot!"

(10-24-2021 11:34 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-24-2021 10:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-24-2021 12:43 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(10-22-2021 01:56 PM)XLance Wrote:  I do think that Kansas and Mizzou end up as the B1G's #15 and #16.

I sincerely believe that Mizzou has zero interest in the B1G. Kansas is another story though, and I am sure that they would jump if offered. However, does the B1G really want Kansas?? I believe that is a legitimate question to ask here.
Does adding Kansas add a rivalry for the B1G?? Believe it or not, yes, it does, in basketball. Kansas used to have a rivalry with Nebraska, so there's that.
Does adding Kansas add a significant market for the B1G??? Kansas City isn't a shrimp, but it is not a "DFW," which the SEC just added.
Does Kansas have a big fan base in its own state??? In basketball, yes. For football, that following is practically microscopic, IMO.

Click the link, and then type in Kansas Jayhawks. Then compare to K-State.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/col...ket-sales/

A legitimate question.
The B1G would take Kansas because they are a "brand". Even though it is in basketball, Kansas has won the last umpteen Big 12 basketball championships against some very good competition and is regarded as a "blue blood" in one of the two top income producing sports.
Kansas is an AAU school which the B1G seems to covet. They are a traditional rival of Nebraska (which needs some identity help in the west). And lastly Kansas and Missouri define the boundaries of what we commonly refer to as the mid-west, and the B1G has always thought of themselves as a mid-western conference.

It is interesting to ponder which school the SEC would target to replace Missouri, if they were to leave to take a spot in the B1G.
My top four contenders would be: Oklahoma State, Louisville, West Virginia and University of South Florida.

Why X, we would move to 18 with Duke, UNC & UVa.

Barring that:
Missouri is essentially holding the slot once offered to FSU.
South Carolina holds the slot once intended for Clemson.
Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas A&M are all now in the fold.

That said I certainly see a major upside for South Florida. The Gulf Coast location in an area of Florida the Gators don't reach in full, and it opens up even more Southerly recruiting plus the market of Tampa / St Pete, and the potential for cruise football weekends between Austin (Corpus Christi), Baton Rouge (New Orleans), Mobile, and Tampa/St Pete which are tremendous business opportunities. Tie in Biloxi and the potential for synergistic revenue is huge for Disney and the SEC. Besides if there is a conference out there who could take a flyer on a work in progress it's the SEC. And USF's research is growing nicely.

I still like 18 in 3 regional divisions with a best at large for conference semis, but alas I don't think we are headed there. We may be headed instead for 6 conferences of 16. If Missouri wanted to leave I think a lot more dominoes would fall than the ACC would like.

I like the idea of 2 12 team conferences under one umbrella. But that worked better with the SEC moving east instead of west. Doing so now would splinter the original 10 SEC schools. You could still combine the SEC, Big 10 and ACC and have 4 12 team conferences, adding 3 more from the Big 12 to get to 48.