(11-26-2013 01:31 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 12:28 PM)Underdog Wrote:  I have the BTN and never watch it.... KU bball alone in the B10 is worth more than Rutgers fball and bball combined in a market that it can't deliver because of poor performance (which will probably get worse in the B10). Furthermore, the SEC saw the value in Mizzou....

The New York Metropolitan Area has approximately 24M people. That equates to an estimated 7.2M households. I'm not even adding in the rest of New Jersey, just the NYC Metropolitan Area that includes the northern Jersey suburbs. As of 2010, about 91% of households had some sort of pay TV service.

So, let's now go with the average cost for the BTN jumping from $0.15 to $0.80, and it going from sports tier to the basic tier.

6.48M households all paying $.65 more than they were, x 12 months a year = $50.54M in new TV revenue under the current TV deals. Those deals are due to renew in 2 years and are almost certainly going to skyrocket again.

A HUGE gain in revenue for the Big 10 and BTN, and that isn't including the rest of NJ into the equation. If they push the price increase across the whole state of NY (no idea if that is their plan) then that makes it even more crazy.

Add in the Maryland + DC population/households and you out number Missouri by several hundred thousand people and it makes Maryland the 2nd most valuable school of the 4 listed in this thread. Very easy decision for the BTN/Big 10 Conference, and, as I said before, Rutgers on its own probably brings more revenue to the conference than Kansas and Missouri combined.

If you think cable in NY and DC metro is going to pay over 5X more for the BTN (and the real numbers are more like 13X more because the BTN gets about 6 cents out of footprint) just so they can show a handful of Rutgers and Maryland games passed over by ESPN, then I've got some BTN stock to sell you. $1000 per share. Please deposit to my paypal and I'll email you the .pdf of the stock certificate.

I guess I should send Wally my paypal information too.

(11-26-2013 03:39 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 01:31 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 12:28 PM)Underdog Wrote:  I have the BTN and never watch it.... KU bball alone in the B10 is worth more than Rutgers fball and bball combined in a market that it can't deliver because of poor performance (which will probably get worse in the B10). Furthermore, the SEC saw the value in Mizzou....

The New York Metropolitan Area has approximately 24M people. That equates to an estimated 7.2M households. I'm not even adding in the rest of New Jersey, just the NYC Metropolitan Area that includes the northern Jersey suburbs. As of 2010, about 91% of households had some sort of pay TV service.

So, let's now go with the average cost for the BTN jumping from $0.15 to $0.80, and it going from sports tier to the basic tier.

6.48M households all paying $.65 more than they were, x 12 months a year = $50.54M in new TV revenue under the current TV deals. Those deals are due to renew in 2 years and are almost certainly going to skyrocket again.

A HUGE gain in revenue for the Big 10 and BTN, and that isn't including the rest of NJ into the equation. If they push the price increase across the whole state of NY (no idea if that is their plan) then that makes it even more crazy.

Add in the Maryland + DC population/households and you out number Missouri by several hundred thousand people and it makes Maryland the 2nd most valuable school of the 4 listed in this thread. Very easy decision for the BTN/Big 10 Conference, and, as I said before, Rutgers on its own probably brings more revenue to the conference than Kansas and Missouri combined.

If you think cable in NY and DC metro is going to pay over 5X more for the BTN (and the real numbers are more like 13X more because the BTN gets about 6 cents out of footprint) just so they can show a handful of Rutgers and Maryland games passed over by ESPN, then I've got some BTN stock to sell you. $1000 per share. Please deposit to my paypal and I'll email you the .pdf of the stock certificate.

I guess I should send Wally my paypal information too.

The B10 nor the SEC can cut the VT/UVA/UNC/NC State/Duke knot. If the B10 really wants to chase future money possibilities in their general region - they should invest time and money into Toronto attempting to cajole them into the game and in attempting to change Canadian practice regarding athletic scholarships. The Toronto metro is the third largest in North America iirc, and it would bleed over into Buffalo, NY.

(11-26-2013 12:51 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  If the big 10 expansion to 16 involves contiguous states then it could be any of the two from this list:

Connecticut
buffalo
Missouri
Kansas
Oklahoma
Kentucky
West Virginia
Virginia

Does Connecticut or Oklahoma actually touch any existing big ten states?

and why isn't Colorado on this list?

(11-26-2013 03:37 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 02:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The hoopla over the Big 10 and its monetary clout is grossly overblown.

The hoopla might be overblown but the reality is that B1G is next in line for a payday. In that respect the leverage Delany has (should B1G's execs choose to make a move) is unmatched. He can likely make a move without diluting the payout below current levels, and that's a huge advantage.

The SEC pockets are deep and just as capable. Our issue is upgrading academics so that those who have decent academics don't mind the association. Ours are better than those of the Big 12 now, but not by much. Sports prowess, culture and ease of travel are our selling points to much of the ACC or some of the Big 12. Making the SEC an academic vs sports and culture neutral decision is our aim. Because of demographics the Big 10 has to push its academics. My point is that for U.N.C., Virginia, Duke, or Texas the CIC isn't that big of an incentive. For Oklahoma or Kansas it would be. But 3 of the top 4 expansion targets won't be that attracted to the CIC and won't be attracted to the academics of the SEC. If they were absolutely compelled to leave it will be either for money, or cultural fit, or logistics. The money differential for the SEC and Big 10 will be within the margin of difference on travel. For the top schools the cultural difference for the colleges themselves would be a slight lean to the Big 10 and for their alumni and fan base an advantage for the SEC. It will be logistics that play a key factor. And that is what I meant by overblown for those schools that we are directly considering to be prime targets.

(11-26-2013 03:39 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  If you think cable in NY and DC metro is going to pay over 5X more for the BTN (and the real numbers are more like 13X more because the BTN gets about 6 cents out of footprint) just so they can show a handful of Rutgers and Maryland games passed over by ESPN, then I've got some BTN stock to sell you. $1000 per share. Please deposit to my paypal and I'll email you the .pdf of the stock certificate.

They will when the channel comes up for renewal at worst. Nebraska providers had to do the same thing when they came on board. Sports fans will quickly switch to other providers (specifically Dish and DirecTV) if the local cable provider doesn't ante up. BTN is counting on it therefore at some point it will happen... they'll wait out those providers like they did when BTN first launched. Eventually everyone came on board.

(11-26-2013 04:09 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 03:39 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  If you think cable in NY and DC metro is going to pay over 5X more for the BTN (and the real numbers are more like 13X more because the BTN gets about 6 cents out of footprint) just so they can show a handful of Rutgers and Maryland games passed over by ESPN, then I've got some BTN stock to sell you. $1000 per share. Please deposit to my paypal and I'll email you the .pdf of the stock certificate.

They will when the channel comes up for renewal at worst. Nebraska providers had to do the same thing when they came on board. Sports fans will quickly switch to other providers (specifically Dish and DirecTV) if the local cable provider doesn't ante up. BTN is counting on it therefore at some point it will happen... they'll wait out those providers like they did when BTN first launched. Eventually everyone came on board.

Yeah...DC and NY are like Lincoln. Good luck with that thinking. LMFAO.

You realize, with that thinking, Rutgers could have gone independent, started their own network that would have shown all of their games, and been the richest athletic department in the world...by far...by charging only half the BTN in-footprint rate.

Seriously, I've got BTN stock for sale. PM me. I'll give you 10% off.

(11-26-2013 03:56 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 12:51 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  If the big 10 expansion to 16 involves contiguous states then it could be any of the two from this list:

Connecticut
buffalo
Missouri
Kansas
Oklahoma
Kentucky
West Virginia
Virginia

Does Connecticut or Oklahoma actually touch any existing big ten states?

and why isn't Colorado on this list?

Or VT?

(11-26-2013 04:12 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Yeah...DC and NY are like Lincoln. Good luck with that thinking. LMFAO.

You realize, with that thinking, Rutgers could have gone independent, started their own network, and been the richest athletic department in the world...by far.

Seriously, I've got BTN stock for sale. PM me. I'll give you 10% off.

NY and DC were chosen for strategic reasons. Both have a TON of B10 alumni living in and around those cities. They will be FURIOUS if they don't have the network and will switch providers. This isn't just about Maryland and Rutgers, this is about the power that the conference has in those markets added on top of the local school. They will get their money... it is only a matter of time. Rutgers and Maryland were the 2 most valuable properties to the BTN thanks to the markets they are in and the alumni living in both markets.

Thus far everything the Big 10 and BTN have tried to do in order to grow their revenue has worked exactly as planned. I don't expect this one to be any different. Just wait until ESPN and Fox are bidding on the first tier rights in a couple of years... that will be crazy money and will leave everyone but the SEC behind.

(11-26-2013 04:22 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 04:12 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Yeah...DC and NY are like Lincoln. Good luck with that thinking. LMFAO.

You realize, with that thinking, Rutgers could have gone independent, started their own network, and been the richest athletic department in the world...by far.

Seriously, I've got BTN stock for sale. PM me. I'll give you 10% off.

NY and DC were chosen for strategic reasons. Both have a TON of B10 alumni living in and around those cities. They will be FURIOUS if they don't have the network and will switch providers. This isn't just about Maryland and Rutgers, this is about the power that the conference has in those markets added on top of the local school. They will get their money... it is only a matter of time. Rutgers and Maryland were the 2 most valuable properties to the BTN thanks to the markets they are in and the alumni living in both markets.

Thus far everything the Big 10 and BTN have tried to do in order to grow their revenue has worked exactly as planned. I don't expect this one to be any different. Just wait until ESPN and Fox are bidding on the first tier rights in a couple of years... that will be crazy money and will leave everyone but the SEC behind.

Like I said, good luck with that. You're living in delusional land, which means, you've likely never lived east of Columbus, OH.

Try reading some news that doesn't come out of the Big Ten Conference press office.

(11-26-2013 04:24 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Like I said, good luck with that. You're living in delusional land, which means, you've likely never lived east of Columbus, OH.

We shall see what happens. Being that they have lots of "experts" working on the marketing and expansion plans, I'm pretty sure they have a good idea on what is going to happen. When the numbers start coming back on the added revenue from Rutgers and Maryland I suspect you may take a step back and recognize just how smart of a move it was for the B1G in terms of revenue. In terms of on the field play, I suspect it will be a huge dud.

(11-26-2013 04:22 PM)mlb Wrote:  NY and DC were chosen for strategic reasons. Both have a TON of B10 alumni living in and around those cities. They will be FURIOUS if they don't have the network and will switch providers.

Is there a precedent you can point to? Has any cable or satellite provider suffered massive, immediate defections because they refused to carry any one channel, sports or otherwise?

You could say that cable and satellite providers lined up to carry the Yankees' channel in New York or the Lakers' new channel in L.A. because they didn't want to risk the defections that might happen if they said no, but Yankees-in-NY or Lakers-in-LA is a level of popularity far, far above that of Big Ten fans in either NY or DC.

(11-26-2013 04:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Is there a precedent you can point to? Has any cable or satellite provider suffered massive, immediate defections because they refused to carry any one channel, sports or otherwise?

You could say that cable and satellite providers lined up to carry the Yankees' channel in New York or the Lakers' new channel in L.A. because they didn't want to risk the defections that might happen if they said no, but Yankees-in-NY or Lakers-in-LA is a level of popularity far, far above that of Big Ten fans in either NY or DC.

Time Warner Cable in Columbus and Dayton I can attest to specifically. UVerse, DirecTV, and Dish all had an immediate rush at the beginning of the 1st season when they hadn't come to an agreement with the BTN. By the 2nd season Time Warner had an agreement and they then marketed the hell out of getting those users back, including buying out their contracts with the previously stated providers.

Their system has worked since the inception of the network... they'll wait out the short term revenue losses in order to get the HUGE revenue gains.

(11-26-2013 03:34 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 02:50 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I'm far from convinced that the Big 10 will expand to 16 but if ANY P5 were going to go to 16 or even larger to say 20 I think it would be the Big 10.

Not so sure about that. The Big Ten has a lot to lose by super-sizing. Schools like Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa would start to feel like they're not even in the same league as Ohio State and Michigan any more.

The Big Ten has enough options and will be making more than enough money, and super-sizing ought to be a much harder sell there than it would be for other leagues -- but maybe we should never underestimate the ability of a few ambitious people with an agenda to bamboozle college presidents who don't really focus on athletics.

That's a risk for any conference that expands even just to 12 or 14, but the separation can be even greater once you go past that number. Having said that, I think that while the PAC doesn't necessarily need to go beyond 12 now, if they ever do decide to expand and get into the Central time zone, waiting out the Big 12 GoR and "super-sizing" with 6 teams to get to 18 would firmly plant their flag in that part of the country and give them all but one of the high-profile schools west of the Missouri river. You could structure a schedule to keep the bulk of your schedule with schools with which you have long-standing relationships with just a few games (and more importantly, road trips) to far-flung newcomers.

(11-26-2013 04:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 04:22 PM)mlb Wrote:  NY and DC were chosen for strategic reasons. Both have a TON of B10 alumni living in and around those cities. They will be FURIOUS if they don't have the network and will switch providers.

Is there a precedent you can point to? Has any cable or satellite provider suffered massive, immediate defections because they refused to carry any one channel, sports or otherwise?

You could say that cable and satellite providers lined up to carry the Yankees' channel in New York or the Lakers' new channel in L.A. because they didn't want to risk the defections that might happen if they said no, but Yankees-in-NY or Lakers-in-LA is a level of popularity far, far above that of Big Ten fans in either NY or DC.

The prior strategy for the B10 Network was to hold off games of local interest in order to get the channel moved up to basic tier where it charges just under $1. They set up switch campaigns, websites and petitions and that worked in places like Iowa and Nebraska. It didn't work in some places like Armstrong Cable in the Pittsburgh area, which still doesn't carry the BTN.

You know how much consternation holding off Rutgers-Purdue is going to cause? Again, these are games passed over by ESPN....in other words a smattering of tier 2 and mostly tier 3 games in kook expansion vernacular.

This is the same cable market that held the Yankees games off the air for two years, yet they think this strategy is going to work for mid-tier at best Rutgers games when at best 3% of the population considers Rutgers their favorite college football team? And no, Yes and the BTN are not going to be bundled because such a move would devalue Yes by artificially boosting the BTN. That's a major conflict of interest.

Fox Sports 1 couldn't even get a bump from their 23 cents carriage fee that they charged for Speed, and FS1 has actual content of interest. Yet, the logic is, the BTN is going to come in and just pummel these cable operators for log folds more money, even though they are already providing the BTN on sports tiers, because of the threat of not showing ESPN-passed over Rutgers games.

Excuse me why I stand by my immense skepticism of people throwing around $100s of millions in increased carriage fees because of a threat to hold off tier 2 and 3 Rutgers and Maryland games. The naivety of comparing the Columbus or Dayton markets to NYC and DC is mindboggling.

(11-26-2013 04:43 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 03:34 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 02:50 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I'm far from convinced that the Big 10 will expand to 16 but if ANY P5 were going to go to 16 or even larger to say 20 I think it would be the Big 10.

Not so sure about that. The Big Ten has a lot to lose by super-sizing. Schools like Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa would start to feel like they're not even in the same league as Ohio State and Michigan any more.

The Big Ten has enough options and will be making more than enough money, and super-sizing ought to be a much harder sell there than it would be for other leagues -- but maybe we should never underestimate the ability of a few ambitious people with an agenda to bamboozle college presidents who don't really focus on athletics.

That's a risk for any conference that expands even just to 12 or 14, but the separation can be even greater once you go past that number. Having said that, I think that while the PAC doesn't necessarily need to go beyond 12 now, if they ever do decide to expand and get into the Central time zone, waiting out the Big 12 GoR and "super-sizing" with 6 teams to get to 18 would firmly plant their flag in that part of the country and give them all but one of the high-profile schools west of the Missouri river. You could structure a schedule to keep the bulk of your schedule with schools with which you have long-standing relationships with just a few games (and more importantly, road trips) to far-flung newcomers.

Good point, Phog, and I think that is what the PAC should do if time allows. I assume that the six would be the public schools of TX, OK, and KS, leaving Iowa State, Baylor, TCU, and WVU. In such a scenario, the ACC would be wise to jump on Baylor and TCU. Iowa State would find a home in a Big 10 or SEC with limited future options, and WVU would have an SEC invite at that point if the ACC were definitely surviving.

I think a Virginia addition on the east side makes the most sense - coupled with either a Missouri or Kansas addition on the west side. Of course a Virginia/UNC combination would be a major, major coup for the Big10.

I think the last two additions were odd choices - athletically speaking anyway. Neither has much historical football success or popularity - although Maryland has good basketball history. But those choices make more sense only if they are going to really try to dominate the central Atlantic coast by grabbing the Virginia/DC/Pennsylvania/NJ/NY markets by coupling Virginia with what they already have in the area (PennSt, Rutgers, Maryland).

This seals the big state public schools of the ACC (VaTech, NCState, UNC, Clemson, GaTech and FloridaSt) off to the southeast - where they only fully dominate the state of North Carolina (they would share South Carolina, Georgia and Florida with the SEC and share Virginia with the Big10). The other full ACC schools (a mixture of city publics and privates: L'ville, Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Duke, WakeForest, Miami) have less natural "territory". This leaves those huge NE TV markets largely disconnected from the ACC or SEC and ripe for Big10 domination.

There really aren't any large state schools with FB/BB credentials in NewEngland/NY (other than UConn for just their BB) so no conference really dominates that area. Buffalo (SUNY-Buffalo) and UMass could have been those types of schools if their last 50 years were not played below the division I radar - but they offer so little to the Big10 as they are.

On the west side (not that #16 has to be a west side school), there are really good BB choices in either Missouri or Kansas - and Missouri has some decent FB success. Missouri has better markets as well - but since they are now in the SEC, they are less likely invites than they were before IMO.

A Big10 basketball conference with either:
A) Kansas, Indiana, MichState, Virginia, Maryland
or
B) Indiana, MichState, Virginia, Maryland, UNC
would be huge.

(11-26-2013 05:00 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 04:43 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 03:34 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 02:50 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I'm far from convinced that the Big 10 will expand to 16 but if ANY P5 were going to go to 16 or even larger to say 20 I think it would be the Big 10.

Not so sure about that. The Big Ten has a lot to lose by super-sizing. Schools like Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa would start to feel like they're not even in the same league as Ohio State and Michigan any more.

The Big Ten has enough options and will be making more than enough money, and super-sizing ought to be a much harder sell there than it would be for other leagues -- but maybe we should never underestimate the ability of a few ambitious people with an agenda to bamboozle college presidents who don't really focus on athletics.

That's a risk for any conference that expands even just to 12 or 14, but the separation can be even greater once you go past that number. Having said that, I think that while the PAC doesn't necessarily need to go beyond 12 now, if they ever do decide to expand and get into the Central time zone, waiting out the Big 12 GoR and "super-sizing" with 6 teams to get to 18 would firmly plant their flag in that part of the country and give them all but one of the high-profile schools west of the Missouri river. You could structure a schedule to keep the bulk of your schedule with schools with which you have long-standing relationships with just a few games (and more importantly, road trips) to far-flung newcomers.

Good point, Phog, and I think that is what the PAC should do if time allows. I assume that the six would be the public schools of TX, OK, and KS, leaving Iowa State, Baylor, TCU, and WVU. In such a scenario, the ACC would be wise to jump on Baylor and TCU. Iowa State would find a home in a Big 10 or SEC with limited future options, and WVU would have an SEC invite at that point if the ACC were definitely surviving.

That's the scenario I was thinking of. I'm pretty sure I first saw JR post something about it, and it made some sense to me. While the travel may seem burdensome at first glance, by breaking into 3x6 and focusing games mostly within your division, it would keep those long road trips to a minimum. The PAC teams would gain conference content in the Central time zone (which would increase national exposure with more palatable start times for the Central and East, particularly at night) and access to Texas. The Big 12 teams would gain access to California, and become part of a more stable whole. I can see how adding all those schools might not be appealing at first glance to the PAC schools, but from a structural perspective it could make sense, particularly since it would have the prospect of making it all more appealing to UT, which would be the ultimate prize.

(11-26-2013 04:43 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 03:34 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 02:50 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I'm far from convinced that the Big 10 will expand to 16 but if ANY P5 were going to go to 16 or even larger to say 20 I think it would be the Big 10.

Not so sure about that. The Big Ten has a lot to lose by super-sizing. Schools like Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa would start to feel like they're not even in the same league as Ohio State and Michigan any more.

The Big Ten has enough options and will be making more than enough money, and super-sizing ought to be a much harder sell there than it would be for other leagues -- but maybe we should never underestimate the ability of a few ambitious people with an agenda to bamboozle college presidents who don't really focus on athletics.

That's a risk for any conference that expands even just to 12 or 14, but the separation can be even greater once you go past that number. Having said that, I think that while the PAC doesn't necessarily need to go beyond 12 now, if they ever do decide to expand and get into the Central time zone, waiting out the Big 12 GoR and "super-sizing" with 6 teams to get to 18 would firmly plant their flag in that part of the country and give them all but one of the high-profile schools west of the Missouri river. You could structure a schedule to keep the bulk of your schedule with schools with which you have long-standing relationships with just a few games (and more importantly, road trips) to far-flung newcomers.

The Pac is different. Every one of the Pac's viable options to try and keep pace with projected future SEC and Big Ten revenue increases includes UT. A persuasive commissioner could easily convince the Pac CEOs to take a 6-team package that includes UT, OU, and KU. Any package that doesn't include the Horns will get no farther than the OU/Ok St application.

The Big Ten is less likely to even consider a large package of Big 12 schools, and less likely to do anything at all to accommodate UT's demands. But super-sizing isn't going to increase Big Ten per-school revenues unless the package includes one or more "whales" like UT, which gives current Big Ten schools little incentive to vote yes.

(11-26-2013 02:30 AM)Badger Wrote:   Take a long look at the map...and let's be honest. Doesn't the next and hopefully last expansion to 16 teams in the Big Ten shout out Mizzou and State University of New York (Buffalo)?

Map Link: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Big+...edIndex=27

If it's all about the map - then Delaware is the obvious choice.

(11-26-2013 05:00 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 04:43 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 03:34 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 02:50 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I'm far from convinced that the Big 10 will expand to 16 but if ANY P5 were going to go to 16 or even larger to say 20 I think it would be the Big 10.

Not so sure about that. The Big Ten has a lot to lose by super-sizing. Schools like Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa would start to feel like they're not even in the same league as Ohio State and Michigan any more.

The Big Ten has enough options and will be making more than enough money, and super-sizing ought to be a much harder sell there than it would be for other leagues -- but maybe we should never underestimate the ability of a few ambitious people with an agenda to bamboozle college presidents who don't really focus on athletics.

That's a risk for any conference that expands even just to 12 or 14, but the separation can be even greater once you go past that number. Having said that, I think that while the PAC doesn't necessarily need to go beyond 12 now, if they ever do decide to expand and get into the Central time zone, waiting out the Big 12 GoR and "super-sizing" with 6 teams to get to 18 would firmly plant their flag in that part of the country and give them all but one of the high-profile schools west of the Missouri river. You could structure a schedule to keep the bulk of your schedule with schools with which you have long-standing relationships with just a few games (and more importantly, road trips) to far-flung newcomers.

Good point, Phog, and I think that is what the PAC should do if time allows. I assume that the six would be the public schools of TX, OK, and KS, leaving Iowa State, Baylor, TCU, and WVU. In such a scenario, the ACC would be wise to jump on Baylor and TCU. Iowa State would find a home in a Big 10 or SEC with limited future options, and WVU would have an SEC invite at that point if the ACC were definitely surviving.

The SEC has the greatest number of viewers in the nation, is advancing on their academics, looks to be a very close second place to the Big 10 in earnings, and has the best overall sports package in the nation (where I come from we call that product). They are not going to find themselves with limited options. Iowa State and West Virginia will not be in the SEC unless we are looking at position #20 or beyond. Besides what happens will depend upon how congenial things become between FOX objectives and those of ESPN. That will do more to determine the relative likelihood of the Big 12's availability to the PAC or having their key properties placed in more ESPN friendly hands and we are only speaking of three teams.

What happens with the Big 10's tier 1 contract renewal will determine whether or not they gain any traction in their desires for a couple of more ACC schools. If it isn't renewed Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas will likely be pulled to either the ACC or SEC.