Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
What will spark the dawn of the mega-conferences?
Author Message
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,490
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 824
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #41
RE: What will spark the dawn of the mega-conferences?
(02-02-2018 03:54 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 01:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 11:34 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  WAC 16 did not fail because 16 is an inherently bad number. WAC 16 failed because it prevented schools that desired to play each other annually from doing so and those schools soon figured out they could make more money on a per team basis as an 8 team league than 16. So why aren't the power conferences shrinking to a better number? Because they can make more larger.

The other thing about the WAC, though, is that when it split up, it didn't split along geographic lines. A few schools with more leverage than the others dictated the split by choosing a few others to go with them and telling those schools, if you don't say yes right away, we'll just pick someone else and leave you behind.

So yeah, the WAC was an unstable 16, but if any future super-sized conference splits up, it will split the same way. Those with the most leverage will control the split and others will end up holding the bag. For example, if the Big Ten ever grows larger and many become dissatisfied with it, any split would be controlled by what Ohio State and Michigan want to do, not by some collective decision in which everyone gets an equal say.

Great point. Any size conference works and can be stable so long as it's profitable and the league structure keeps traditional rivals playing.

I struggle with why the WAC didn't see the flaw in their 16 team model. They knew full well that the Utah schools and New Mexico would be cut off from Wyoming, AFA, and Wyoming and yet they did it anyway.

Big 10 (at 24):

West: California, Cal Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

Midwest: Colorado, Kansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

Mideast: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Purdue

East: Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia


SEC (at 24)

West: Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Southwest: Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Miss. State, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

Southeast: Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Miami

East: Clemson, Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech


Now you have 48 schools in the Mega 2 and the Big 10 / SEC Rivalry tag sells better than any whether it is a special one and done at a neutral site, a bowl game, or a home and home.

These two could pool their media contracts and the leverage would be astronomical.

Your Tweener 3 can become a healthier Tweener 2:

ACC:

North: Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

South: Central Florida, Duke, East Carolina, Louisville, South Florida, Wake Forest

Big 12:

West: Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon State, San Diego St., Utah, Washington State

East: Baylor, Brigham Young, Colorado State, Iowa State, Kansas State, T.C.U.


* Notre Dame can attach wherever they wish.

The G5 should then realign into two strong conferences as well of 12 to 16 schools an that should form the FBS.
02-02-2018 04:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,143
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 37
I Root For: Ohio St, MAC
Location:
Post: #42
RE: What will spark the dawn of the mega-conferences?
(02-02-2018 04:10 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  being cut off from BYU travelling fan base was the promblem
SDST was the 2nd reason
didn't AF threaten to go indepentant

Yes, and I think they were dead serious about it too.

In retrospect they should have left Rice, TCU, and SMU to rebuild with Tulsa and other Central Time Zone teams the MWC might never had beep spun off.

The WAC would have been:

West: Hawaii, San Jose St, Fresno St, San Diego St, UNLV, Utah
East: BYU, WYO, Colo St, AFA, UNM, UTEP

Add a permanent crossover for the Utah schools and you'd have a very stable league without the excess of the 16 team WAC.
02-02-2018 04:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Online
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 21,545
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 625
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #43
RE: What will spark the dawn of the mega-conferences?
(02-02-2018 03:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 11:34 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Funny how people tend to learn the wrong lessons from everything that happens in the past.
The European powers (not just France) invested in fixed fortifications to fight the next trench war from better developed infrastructure. Germany had a similar line and tried to do one on the coast. Everyone dashed to build battleships.

WAC 16 did not fail because 16 is an inherently bad number. WAC 16 failed because it prevented schools that desired to play each other annually from doing so and those schools soon figured out they could make more money on a per team basis as an 8 team league than 16. So why aren't the power conferences shrinking to a better number? Because they can make more larger.

If the SEC can be stronger and more profitable with 20 they would be seeking 6 members to help them do that.

For decades 7 or 8 was considered the ideal number then it became 9 or 10, then we heard to the point of exhaustion that 12 was perfect.

The perfect number is the number that best fits your goals and if the market changes (which it has always done) and the ideal number is 20 we will see conferences go to 20, if 16 is the ideal we will see 16 team leagues and if the changes make it better to be in a 9 member conference then there will be risk of that happening as well.

Amazes me so few understand this.

That said, since the TV began to see growing value in college media rights, the standard negotiating unit for college TV rights has continued to shrink. It began with the NCAA negotiating for all the schools as a single block. Then a consortium of conferences became the standard unit (CFA and the remaining NCAA). Then the conference became the standard unit of negotiation. Every time its been because a subset within a negotiating unit realized they could do better separately. As long as that driver exists, I see no reason that this trend towards smaller negotiating units will not continue. Eventually, the individual school will become the base negotiating unit. There may be a step or two between that future and the current configuration (say a P5 consolidation or uneven revenue sharing within conferences)--but eventually I think we end up with individual schools negotiating their own media contracts.

If the carriage model weakens further (I expect it will) or collapses (less likely) then it will could be that see schools demanding that they retain a number of games to sell on their own.

That's the logical next step, a creep into individual rights rather than a leap.
02-02-2018 04:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,490
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 824
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #44
RE: What will spark the dawn of the mega-conferences?
(02-02-2018 04:25 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 03:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 11:34 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Funny how people tend to learn the wrong lessons from everything that happens in the past.
The European powers (not just France) invested in fixed fortifications to fight the next trench war from better developed infrastructure. Germany had a similar line and tried to do one on the coast. Everyone dashed to build battleships.

WAC 16 did not fail because 16 is an inherently bad number. WAC 16 failed because it prevented schools that desired to play each other annually from doing so and those schools soon figured out they could make more money on a per team basis as an 8 team league than 16. So why aren't the power conferences shrinking to a better number? Because they can make more larger.

If the SEC can be stronger and more profitable with 20 they would be seeking 6 members to help them do that.

For decades 7 or 8 was considered the ideal number then it became 9 or 10, then we heard to the point of exhaustion that 12 was perfect.

The perfect number is the number that best fits your goals and if the market changes (which it has always done) and the ideal number is 20 we will see conferences go to 20, if 16 is the ideal we will see 16 team leagues and if the changes make it better to be in a 9 member conference then there will be risk of that happening as well.

Amazes me so few understand this.

That said, since the TV began to see growing value in college media rights, the standard negotiating unit for college TV rights has continued to shrink. It began with the NCAA negotiating for all the schools as a single block. Then a consortium of conferences became the standard unit (CFA and the remaining NCAA). Then the conference became the standard unit of negotiation. Every time its been because a subset within a negotiating unit realized they could do better separately. As long as that driver exists, I see no reason that this trend towards smaller negotiating units will not continue. Eventually, the individual school will become the base negotiating unit. There may be a step or two between that future and the current configuration (say a P5 consolidation or uneven revenue sharing within conferences)--but eventually I think we end up with individual schools negotiating their own media contracts.

If the carriage model weakens further (I expect it will) or collapses (less likely) then it will could be that see schools demanding that they retain a number of games to sell on their own.

That's the logical next step, a creep into individual rights rather than a leap.

Well it started with every school being independent. But that was before TV. Conferences were formed for ease of scheduling and because rivalries will always be the driver of revenue for the programs.

I don't think we are going to a day where everything is independent again. Some leverage will be needed in dealing with uber wealthy international conglomerates so some form of a collective will be necessary. What I suspect will happen is consolidation in terms of the number of elite schools which may make conferences larger in size, but much fewer in number. Ken D's idea of a Mega 2 is not that farfetched whether at 20 or 24 members each. But that would be a reduction of what we call P schools from 65 to 48 or 40. The Tweener conferences he refers to might consist of non more than 24 schools.

The dividing line in revenue takes a dip below 71st position.

The G5 could, and probably should consolidate into two conferences of 24 to 36 schools and the rest don't belong in Division 1.

What I think you will see are regional divisions instead of small conferences dwelling within a collection of small divisions within a singular grouping which functions to organize officiating, negotiate contracts, and make schedules. And of course that is a conference. It's just that there will likely be just two of them in each class of schools and negotiating as a unit would be beneficial.
02-02-2018 04:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 13,369
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 423
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #45
RE: What will spark the dawn of the mega-conferences?
(02-02-2018 04:25 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If the carriage model weakens further (I expect it will) or collapses (less likely) then it will could be that see schools demanding that they retain a number of games to sell on their own.

That's the logical next step, a creep into individual rights rather than a leap.

It's a big creep, if each school retained the rights to all non-conference football games. USC and ND could sell their game by itself, maybe fetching $10 million/year at today's prices, and USC gets $5 million they don't have to share with conference mates. If Texas ever plays Texas A&M again, that would probably be worth about the same, again, a nice $5 million/year for each school that isn't shared with conference mates. Many marquee non-con games could fetch almost that much for TV rights.

And essentially the conference TV contracts would be devalued by the value of each non-con game that isn't in the conference TV package; effectively, each other Big 12 team would be giving up $500,000 each year so that the Horns can get the whole $5 million in TV money from one of their big non-con games.
02-02-2018 05:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 906
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 25
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: :uoᴉʇɐɔo⌉
Post: #46
RE: What will spark the dawn of the mega-conferences?
(02-02-2018 03:42 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Do you not understand metaphors? What I'm demonstrating is that by adding those programs the sum is greater than its parts. 20 teams ends up having the value of 28.

"What's a metaphor?"

"Nothin'. What's-a metaphor you?"
02-02-2018 05:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 906
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 25
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: :uoᴉʇɐɔo⌉
Post: #47
RE: What will spark the dawn of the mega-conferences?
(02-02-2018 03:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  An interesting question, to which I don't know the answer, is whether if all but two schools leave a conference (like West Virginia and Baylor) would those two be allowed to retain the right to use the conference name (and existing contractual benefits) and invite most of another conference to join them?

Seems like that would be a backdoor way for one conference to shed some of its members for whom they have buyer's remorse (like Tulane and Tulsa, for example) without having to follow their own league's rules to expel them.

I don't see why not. That's essentially what the old BE/American did with CUSA. It's only because of the basketball split that they lost their original conference name.
02-02-2018 05:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,143
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 37
I Root For: Ohio St, MAC
Location:
Post: #48
RE: What will spark the dawn of the mega-conferences?
(02-02-2018 03:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 01:41 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 11:48 AM)ken d Wrote:  In a content driven model, I could see the outside chance that the SEC and B1G could make major additions that would completely reshape college football.

Let's say the SEC poaches Florida State and Clemson from the ACC (leaving that league at 12) plus Texas, TCU, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State from the Big 12 (leaving them at 6).

Now the B1G adds the 4 Cali schools, plus Washington and Oregon, leaving the PAC at 6.

The PAC takes Kansas State, Texas Tech, Iowa State and Kansas from what's left of the Big 12, leaving West Virginia and Baylor out in the cold. Those two have little choice but to join the AAC, which welcomes them with open arms. The PAC then picks up the more geographically suited Boise State and BYU, now that the big dogs in the PAC are no longer around to block them.

Now is when things get interesting. The B1G and SEC no longer have any need for the CFP. And, they could go to divisionless scheduling, pairing members the way they want to be paired for a conference schedule. Each of them could stage an 8 team conference tournament, playing down to 2 teams, who would then be matched in a 4 team playoff ay the Sugar Bowl and Rose Bowl.

But wait, you say. NCAA rules don't allow this. You see where I'm going here. Who cares about those NCAA rules? Those two leagues are strong enough to tell the NCAA to pound sand. These 40 schools can make their own rules.

So, what about the rest of the FBS? After the M(ega)2, we are left with a T(weener)3 in the PAC, ACC and AAC, and a G4 (MWC, MAC, CUSA and SBC). Now that the M2 has blown up those NCAA rules about postseason play, the T3 could have a four team playoff of its own in bowl season, pitting 3 conference champs and a wild card.

Basically, nothing happens, good or bad, to the G4. They are right where the are today. The T3, however, while still very viable in everything but football, are going to take a very big financial haircut from the networks. They still have value, but not $10 million per team value. Maybe they could negotiate in the $6-8 million range. They would be dwarfed by the M2 moneybags.

Again, so what? It really isn't about how many millions you get. Nobody NEEDS that kind of money. What matters is how much do you get relative to your peers. Your peers no longer include teams in the B1G and SEC. You can just drop out of that fiscal arms race and live comfortably within your means. You don't need to pay mega salaries for your coaches, because the ones who are really worth it have already moved up in class. Forget the gold plated toilet seats and laser tag arenas for your players. Learn to live comfortably in your new upper middle class athletic lifestyle, and try not to envy the haves of the athletics rich.

Some of your fans won't be happy, but there may be some who like the new reality.

This is an interesting scenario for the post-ACC-GOR era (mid-2030s on). I'd argue that the Big Ten is likelier to take Colorado over Oregon and the SEC to take Tech over TCU (if they bother to allow either). Abandoning divisions may indeed be the way for the M2 to go.

Leaving behind Baylor and WV means the Big 12 will likely survive, although will backfill with almost all the current AAC schools. After this, Tulsa and Tulane are the only remaining AAC schools, so they form a more regional conference by absorbing CUSA West. CUSA rebuilds as an eastern conference. The ACC moves Miami to the Atlantic to balance the divisions while Notre Dame leaves for the Big East. The depleted Pac-12 absorbs 4 Big 12 schools plus Boise and Colorado State (BYU stays indy).

"Tweener 3"

ACC
Atlantic: Boston College, Louisville, Miami-FL, NC State, Syracuse, Wake Forest
Coastal: Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Big 12
East: Central Florida, Connecticut, East Carolina, South Florida, Temple, West Virginia
West: Baylor, Cincinnati, Houston, Memphis, Navy*, SMU
Non-FB: Wichita State

Pac-12
East: Colorado State, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, TCU, Utah
West: Arizona, Arizona State, Boise State, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington State

G5

AAC
East: Arkansas State, Louisiana Tech, Southern Miss, Tulane, UAB
West: North Texas, Rice, Tulsa, UTEP, UTSA

CUSA
North: James Madison, Marshall, Middle Tennessee, Old Dominion, Western Kentucky
South: Appalachian State, Charlotte, FAU, FIU, Georgia Southern

MAC
East: Akron, Bowling Green, Buffalo, Kent State, Miami-OH, Ohio
West: Ball State, Central Michigan, Eastern Michigan, Northern Illinois, Toledo, Western Michigan

MWC
Mountain: Air Force, New Mexico, UNLV, Utah State, Wyoming
West: Fresno State, Hawaii*, Nevada, San Diego State, San Jose State

SBC
East: Coastal Carolina, Eastern Kentucky, Georgia State, Liberty*, Troy
West: Louisiana-Lafayette, Louisiana-Monroe, New Mexico State*, South Alabama, Texas State
Non-FB: Little Rock, Texas-Arlington

Independent
Army, BYU, Massachusetts, Notre Dame

* = football-only affiliate

An interesting question, to which I don't know the answer, is whether if all but two schools leave a conference (like West Virginia and Baylor) would those two be allowed to retain the right to use the conference name (and existing contractual benefits) and invite most of another conference to join them?

Seems like that would be a backdoor way for one conference to shed some of its members for whom they have buyer's remorse (like Tulane and Tulsa, for example) without having to follow their own league's rules to expel them.

I could see where that would work--everyone in the AAC force Wichita St, Tulsa, and Tulane to either vote with them to suspend the exit fee so they could hook up with the ex-Big 12ers and the trade off is they don't vote to disband the AAC giving the left behind schools a conference structure to rebuild with.
02-02-2018 06:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panama Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,000
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 335
I Root For: Georgia STATE
Location: East Atlanta Village
Post: #49
RE: What will spark the dawn of the mega-conferences?
(02-02-2018 04:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 03:54 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 01:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 11:34 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  WAC 16 did not fail because 16 is an inherently bad number. WAC 16 failed because it prevented schools that desired to play each other annually from doing so and those schools soon figured out they could make more money on a per team basis as an 8 team league than 16. So why aren't the power conferences shrinking to a better number? Because they can make more larger.

The other thing about the WAC, though, is that when it split up, it didn't split along geographic lines. A few schools with more leverage than the others dictated the split by choosing a few others to go with them and telling those schools, if you don't say yes right away, we'll just pick someone else and leave you behind.

So yeah, the WAC was an unstable 16, but if any future super-sized conference splits up, it will split the same way. Those with the most leverage will control the split and others will end up holding the bag. For example, if the Big Ten ever grows larger and many become dissatisfied with it, any split would be controlled by what Ohio State and Michigan want to do, not by some collective decision in which everyone gets an equal say.

Great point. Any size conference works and can be stable so long as it's profitable and the league structure keeps traditional rivals playing.

I struggle with why the WAC didn't see the flaw in their 16 team model. They knew full well that the Utah schools and New Mexico would be cut off from Wyoming, AFA, and Wyoming and yet they did it anyway.

Big 10 (at 24):

West: California, Cal Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

Midwest: Colorado, Kansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

Mideast: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Purdue

East: Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia


SEC (at 24)

West: Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Southwest: Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Miss. State, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

Southeast: Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Miami

East: Clemson, Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech


Now you have 48 schools in the Mega 2 and the Big 10 / SEC Rivalry tag sells better than any whether it is a special one and done at a neutral site, a bowl game, or a home and home.

These two could pool their media contracts and the leverage would be astronomical.

Your Tweener 3 can become a healthier Tweener 2:

ACC:

North: Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

South: Central Florida, Duke, East Carolina, Louisville, South Florida, Wake Forest

Big 12:

West: Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon State, San Diego St., Utah, Washington State

East: Baylor, Brigham Young, Colorado State, Iowa State, Kansas State, T.C.U.


* Notre Dame can attach wherever they wish.

The G5 should then realign into two strong conferences as well of 12 to 16 schools an that should form the FBS.
As Chairman I hereby declare these Ridiculous Offseason Games OPEN!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
02-02-2018 06:39 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 143
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 8
I Root For: SEC &others
Location:
Post: #50
RE: What will spark the dawn of the mega-conferences?
Someone logically explain the purpose of having conferences, not a separate association, consisting of 18, 20, 22, or 24 members? Such numbers significantly exceed the quantity needed to meet scheduling requirements of every sport. There are expectations, in most conference sports, everybody plays everyone else within a REASONABLE cycle. There are only 12 regular season games for fb unless someone wants to take a trip to Hawaii. In bb, home to home within a season is common and preferred. Then, there are the OOCs to be accommodated. No need for a conference to be overly incestuous as subsets. Engaging other conferences need to be encouraged on peer levels for the regular season.

Having a P5/NCAA policy of a maximize of sixteen (16) members would be a good thing. There has long been a minimum number for certain validations. It would lead to overall better stability, and knowing there is a limit to aggressive aquisitions. Perhaps not all want to go to 16 based on needs, and that should be generally OK. It would also make final choices in aquisitions more thoughtful and strategic.
(This post was last modified: 02-02-2018 07:06 PM by OdinFrigg.)
02-02-2018 07:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 906
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 25
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: :uoᴉʇɐɔo⌉
Post: #51
RE: What will spark the dawn of the mega-conferences?
(02-02-2018 06:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I could see where that would work--everyone in the AAC force Wichita St, Tulsa, and Tulane to either vote with them to suspend the exit fee so they could hook up with the ex-Big 12ers and the trade off is they don't vote to disband the AAC giving the left behind schools a conference structure to rebuild with.

I think it's safe to assume that the departures of schools from the Big 12, and thus from the American as well, would occur in a staggered manner, not all at once. Think of what happened with the Big East. This prevents the departing schools from having enough influence over the conference they're leaving to dissolve it. Furthermore, I'm not certain, but some conferences may have rules that ban schools from having a vote on conference matters if they announce they're leaving.
(This post was last modified: 02-02-2018 07:24 PM by Nerdlinger.)
02-02-2018 07:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,490
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 824
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #52
RE: What will spark the dawn of the mega-conferences?
(02-02-2018 07:02 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Someone logically explain the purpose of having conferences, not a separate association, consisting of 18, 20, 22, or 24 members? Such numbers significantly exceed the quantity needed to meet scheduling requirements of every sport. There are expectations, in most conference sports, everybody plays everyone else within a REASONABLE cycle. There are only 12 regular season games for fb unless someone wants to take a trip to Hawaii. In bb, home to home within a season is common and preferred. Then, there are the OOCs to be accommodated. No need for a conference to be overly incestuous as subsets. Engaging other conferences need to be encouraged on peer levels for the regular season.

Having a P5/NCAA policy of a maximize of sixteen (16) members would be a good thing. There has long been a minimum number for certain validations. It would lead to overall better stability, and knowing there is a limit to aggressive aquisitions. Perhaps not all want to go to 16 based on needs, and that should be generally OK. It would also make final choices in aquisitions more thoughtful and strategic.

They will be thoughtful and strategic anyway. The SEC won't add a school unless they increase the bottom line and we have parameters beyond that initial qualifier. They must be contiguous and fit our cultural identity (have some claim on being Southern). Beyond that we look at overall sports fit (meaning they have to offer the requisite number of required sports with facilities that meet conference standards). If they don't currently meet those requirements they have to have a plan in place to have met them prior to their joining the conference. We also look at academics. While a strong product might have average academics we look for schools who meet our athletic profile who also have high academic standings.

So the presidents (those who decide these issues) look at the profit and then decide on applicants after checking the other criteria.

A prospective member like Oklahoma is at the academic mean of the SEC, but their financial numbers are extremely strong and their sports emphasis and fit is dead on for the SEC. With Missouri they had the market impact we were looking for with the birth of the SECN and their academics were strong. Their overall sports fit was strong. But their sports history was pretty average and they had to upgrade facilities.
Texas A&M was extremely strong in all areas and as close to a no brainer addition as we could hope to find.

When we add again it will likely be two schools with a sports brand pedigree with average to strong academics, either inside of our footprint or in a contiguous state bringing a new market. For a school like Oklahoma State to get a serious look they would have to be the traveling companion of Oklahoma. Oklahoma brings an economic impact of 1 billion with them. That's the 3rd best in the nation, slightly higher than that of Alabama who is 4th, and behind Ohio State and Texas who are 1st and 2nd.

To put it another way our average economic impact for an SEC school is 1/2 billion plus per school. The SEC's overall economic impact is over 7 billion and 2 billion ahead of the Big 10. The Oklahoma pair would be 124 million each (by average) in excess of the SEC's current average. In terms of gross total revenue the two together generated 243 million between them (150 million for OU / 93 million for OSU).

It's the silly season and folks building lists and having global domination alignments is the norm.

In the SEC the additions of Arkansas, Missouri, and South Carolina were top 30ish and top 40ish programs. With A&M we added a top 10. If the SEC added Texas and Oklahoma (which would be tough to do) we would hold 7 of the top 10 programs. That would be a grand slam in realignment terms. It is also why we or another conference might consider letting Oklahoma or Texas bring another state school along. Either of those two cover the other addition and still leave us a profit, but more importantly would leave us in a revenue position that really could not be challenged by another conference adding anyone else.
02-02-2018 08:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,585
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 341
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #53
RE: What will spark the dawn of the mega-conferences?
(02-02-2018 04:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 03:54 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 01:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 11:34 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  WAC 16 did not fail because 16 is an inherently bad number. WAC 16 failed because it prevented schools that desired to play each other annually from doing so and those schools soon figured out they could make more money on a per team basis as an 8 team league than 16. So why aren't the power conferences shrinking to a better number? Because they can make more larger.

The other thing about the WAC, though, is that when it split up, it didn't split along geographic lines. A few schools with more leverage than the others dictated the split by choosing a few others to go with them and telling those schools, if you don't say yes right away, we'll just pick someone else and leave you behind.

So yeah, the WAC was an unstable 16, but if any future super-sized conference splits up, it will split the same way. Those with the most leverage will control the split and others will end up holding the bag. For example, if the Big Ten ever grows larger and many become dissatisfied with it, any split would be controlled by what Ohio State and Michigan want to do, not by some collective decision in which everyone gets an equal say.

Great point. Any size conference works and can be stable so long as it's profitable and the league structure keeps traditional rivals playing.

I struggle with why the WAC didn't see the flaw in their 16 team model. They knew full well that the Utah schools and New Mexico would be cut off from Wyoming, AFA, and Wyoming and yet they did it anyway.

Big 10 (at 24):

West: California, Cal Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

Midwest: Colorado, Kansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

Mideast: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Purdue

East: Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia


SEC (at 24)

West: Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Southwest: Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Miss. State, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

Southeast: Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Miami

East: Clemson, Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech


Now you have 48 schools in the Mega 2 and the Big 10 / SEC Rivalry tag sells better than any whether it is a special one and done at a neutral site, a bowl game, or a home and home.

These two could pool their media contracts and the leverage would be astronomical.

Your Tweener 3 can become a healthier Tweener 2:

ACC:

North: Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

South: Central Florida, Duke, East Carolina, Louisville, South Florida, Wake Forest

Big 12:

West: Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon State, San Diego St., Utah, Washington State

East: Baylor, Brigham Young, Colorado State, Iowa State, Kansas State, T.C.U.


* Notre Dame can attach wherever they wish.

The G5 should then realign into two strong conferences as well of 12 to 16 schools an that should form the FBS.

When I formulated my two megaconferences, part of my motivation was to show just how few schools need to be added to the B1G and SEC in order to include virtually all of the top programs attractive to a national audience without expelling any current members of those conferences.

Using 8 year power ratings for all FBS teams, 29 of the top 40 teams would be in my M2, and all of the top 16 programs. If I am ESPN, and trying to create a condition which would fill the most time slots on all my channels every week of the season, these 40 would be enough. They could provide about 12 games of national interest every week of the season. Why would I need to add 8 more mouths to feed, only 2 of which are Top 40 teams (#27 Virginia Tech and #32 Miami)?

Now, if I am the B1G and the SEC, I go out of my way to avoid suggesting our 16 team postseason tournament is a national championship tournament. Chances are, in most years the AP and Coaches Polls will have one of our members ranked #1 at the end of the year. And, if they should ever vote for someone else, so what? What does it cost you? Nothing.
02-02-2018 08:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,490
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 824
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #54
RE: What will spark the dawn of the mega-conferences?
(02-02-2018 08:51 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 04:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 03:54 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 01:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 11:34 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  WAC 16 did not fail because 16 is an inherently bad number. WAC 16 failed because it prevented schools that desired to play each other annually from doing so and those schools soon figured out they could make more money on a per team basis as an 8 team league than 16. So why aren't the power conferences shrinking to a better number? Because they can make more larger.

The other thing about the WAC, though, is that when it split up, it didn't split along geographic lines. A few schools with more leverage than the others dictated the split by choosing a few others to go with them and telling those schools, if you don't say yes right away, we'll just pick someone else and leave you behind.

So yeah, the WAC was an unstable 16, but if any future super-sized conference splits up, it will split the same way. Those with the most leverage will control the split and others will end up holding the bag. For example, if the Big Ten ever grows larger and many become dissatisfied with it, any split would be controlled by what Ohio State and Michigan want to do, not by some collective decision in which everyone gets an equal say.

Great point. Any size conference works and can be stable so long as it's profitable and the league structure keeps traditional rivals playing.

I struggle with why the WAC didn't see the flaw in their 16 team model. They knew full well that the Utah schools and New Mexico would be cut off from Wyoming, AFA, and Wyoming and yet they did it anyway.

Big 10 (at 24):

West: California, Cal Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

Midwest: Colorado, Kansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

Mideast: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Purdue

East: Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia


SEC (at 24)

West: Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Southwest: Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Miss. State, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

Southeast: Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Miami

East: Clemson, Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech


Now you have 48 schools in the Mega 2 and the Big 10 / SEC Rivalry tag sells better than any whether it is a special one and done at a neutral site, a bowl game, or a home and home.

These two could pool their media contracts and the leverage would be astronomical.

Your Tweener 3 can become a healthier Tweener 2:

ACC:

North: Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

South: Central Florida, Duke, East Carolina, Louisville, South Florida, Wake Forest

Big 12:

West: Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon State, San Diego St., Utah, Washington State

East: Baylor, Brigham Young, Colorado State, Iowa State, Kansas State, T.C.U.


* Notre Dame can attach wherever they wish.

The G5 should then realign into two strong conferences as well of 12 to 16 schools an that should form the FBS.

When I formulated my two megaconferences, part of my motivation was to show just how few schools need to be added to the B1G and SEC in order to include virtually all of the top programs attractive to a national audience without expelling any current members of those conferences.

Using 8 year power ratings for all FBS teams, 29 of the top 40 teams would be in my M2, and all of the top 16 programs. If I am ESPN, and trying to create a condition which would fill the most time slots on all my channels every week of the season, these 40 would be enough. They could provide about 12 games of national interest every week of the season. Why would I need to add 8 more mouths to feed, only 2 of which are Top 40 teams (#27 Virginia Tech and #32 Miami)?

Now, if I am the B1G and the SEC, I go out of my way to avoid suggesting our 16 team postseason tournament is a national championship tournament. Chances are, in most years the AP and Coaches Polls will have one of our members ranked #1 at the end of the year. And, if they should ever vote for someone else, so what? What does it cost you? Nothing.

Those other 8 are decent names with which to pad the Win Loss record. You've got to keep the alumni and boosters on board as well. If you want to look like an A student on an above average ability you need some C & D students in the class too. That old bell curve has worked for eons.

I liked your plan too. I just thought the middle was too large.
02-02-2018 08:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,585
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 341
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #55
RE: What will spark the dawn of the mega-conferences?
(02-02-2018 08:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 08:51 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 04:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 03:54 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 01:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The other thing about the WAC, though, is that when it split up, it didn't split along geographic lines. A few schools with more leverage than the others dictated the split by choosing a few others to go with them and telling those schools, if you don't say yes right away, we'll just pick someone else and leave you behind.

So yeah, the WAC was an unstable 16, but if any future super-sized conference splits up, it will split the same way. Those with the most leverage will control the split and others will end up holding the bag. For example, if the Big Ten ever grows larger and many become dissatisfied with it, any split would be controlled by what Ohio State and Michigan want to do, not by some collective decision in which everyone gets an equal say.

Great point. Any size conference works and can be stable so long as it's profitable and the league structure keeps traditional rivals playing.

I struggle with why the WAC didn't see the flaw in their 16 team model. They knew full well that the Utah schools and New Mexico would be cut off from Wyoming, AFA, and Wyoming and yet they did it anyway.

Big 10 (at 24):

West: California, Cal Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

Midwest: Colorado, Kansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

Mideast: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Purdue

East: Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia


SEC (at 24)

West: Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Southwest: Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Miss. State, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

Southeast: Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Miami

East: Clemson, Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech


Now you have 48 schools in the Mega 2 and the Big 10 / SEC Rivalry tag sells better than any whether it is a special one and done at a neutral site, a bowl game, or a home and home.

These two could pool their media contracts and the leverage would be astronomical.

Your Tweener 3 can become a healthier Tweener 2:

ACC:

North: Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

South: Central Florida, Duke, East Carolina, Louisville, South Florida, Wake Forest

Big 12:

West: Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon State, San Diego St., Utah, Washington State

East: Baylor, Brigham Young, Colorado State, Iowa State, Kansas State, T.C.U.


* Notre Dame can attach wherever they wish.

The G5 should then realign into two strong conferences as well of 12 to 16 schools an that should form the FBS.

When I formulated my two megaconferences, part of my motivation was to show just how few schools need to be added to the B1G and SEC in order to include virtually all of the top programs attractive to a national audience without expelling any current members of those conferences.

Using 8 year power ratings for all FBS teams, 29 of the top 40 teams would be in my M2, and all of the top 16 programs. If I am ESPN, and trying to create a condition which would fill the most time slots on all my channels every week of the season, these 40 would be enough. They could provide about 12 games of national interest every week of the season. Why would I need to add 8 more mouths to feed, only 2 of which are Top 40 teams (#27 Virginia Tech and #32 Miami)?

Now, if I am the B1G and the SEC, I go out of my way to avoid suggesting our 16 team postseason tournament is a national championship tournament. Chances are, in most years the AP and Coaches Polls will have one of our members ranked #1 at the end of the year. And, if they should ever vote for someone else, so what? What does it cost you? Nothing.

Those other 8 are decent names with which to pad the Win Loss record. You've got to keep the alumni and boosters on board as well. If you want to look like an A student on an above average ability you need some C & D students in the class too. That old bell curve has worked for eons.

I liked your plan too. I just thought the middle was too large.

Actually, the B1G would still have plenty of teams to beat up on. Only the SEC would have too strong a ratio of excellent teams to reliable losers.
02-02-2018 09:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,490
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 824
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #56
RE: What will spark the dawn of the mega-conferences?
(02-02-2018 09:04 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 08:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 08:51 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 04:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 03:54 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Great point. Any size conference works and can be stable so long as it's profitable and the league structure keeps traditional rivals playing.

I struggle with why the WAC didn't see the flaw in their 16 team model. They knew full well that the Utah schools and New Mexico would be cut off from Wyoming, AFA, and Wyoming and yet they did it anyway.

Big 10 (at 24):

West: California, Cal Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

Midwest: Colorado, Kansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

Mideast: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Purdue

East: Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia


SEC (at 24)

West: Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Southwest: Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Miss. State, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

Southeast: Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Miami

East: Clemson, Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech


Now you have 48 schools in the Mega 2 and the Big 10 / SEC Rivalry tag sells better than any whether it is a special one and done at a neutral site, a bowl game, or a home and home.

These two could pool their media contracts and the leverage would be astronomical.

Your Tweener 3 can become a healthier Tweener 2:

ACC:

North: Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

South: Central Florida, Duke, East Carolina, Louisville, South Florida, Wake Forest

Big 12:

West: Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon State, San Diego St., Utah, Washington State

East: Baylor, Brigham Young, Colorado State, Iowa State, Kansas State, T.C.U.


* Notre Dame can attach wherever they wish.

The G5 should then realign into two strong conferences as well of 12 to 16 schools an that should form the FBS.

When I formulated my two megaconferences, part of my motivation was to show just how few schools need to be added to the B1G and SEC in order to include virtually all of the top programs attractive to a national audience without expelling any current members of those conferences.

Using 8 year power ratings for all FBS teams, 29 of the top 40 teams would be in my M2, and all of the top 16 programs. If I am ESPN, and trying to create a condition which would fill the most time slots on all my channels every week of the season, these 40 would be enough. They could provide about 12 games of national interest every week of the season. Why would I need to add 8 more mouths to feed, only 2 of which are Top 40 teams (#27 Virginia Tech and #32 Miami)?

Now, if I am the B1G and the SEC, I go out of my way to avoid suggesting our 16 team postseason tournament is a national championship tournament. Chances are, in most years the AP and Coaches Polls will have one of our members ranked #1 at the end of the year. And, if they should ever vote for someone else, so what? What does it cost you? Nothing.

Those other 8 are decent names with which to pad the Win Loss record. You've got to keep the alumni and boosters on board as well. If you want to look like an A student on an above average ability you need some C & D students in the class too. That old bell curve has worked for eons.

I liked your plan too. I just thought the middle was too large.

Actually, the B1G would still have plenty of teams to beat up on. Only the SEC would have too strong a ratio of excellent teams to reliable losers.

I considered that too. But I also considered the Big 10 in basketball season. What looks like more football dregs would be mid tier in the Big 10 but their basketball schools would provide the top the Big 10 has been missing of late and with Michigan State's future looking quite bleak right now it would be instant relief.

Then the SEC would be more competitive in basketball but not dominant and the Big 10 would be more competitive in football, but not dominant. And that helps sell the rivalry even more as both camps will usually have something to crow about.
02-02-2018 09:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 143
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 8
I Root For: SEC &others
Location:
Post: #57
RE: What will spark the dawn of the mega-conferences?
(02-02-2018 08:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 07:02 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Someone logically explain the purpose of having conferences, not a separate association, consisting of 18, 20, 22, or 24 members? Such numbers significantly exceed the quantity needed to meet scheduling requirements of every sport. There are expectations, in most conference sports, everybody plays everyone else within a REASONABLE cycle. There are only 12 regular season games for fb unless someone wants to take a trip to Hawaii. In bb, home to home within a season is common and preferred. Then, there are the OOCs to be accommodated. No need for a conference to be overly incestuous as subsets. Engaging other conferences need to be encouraged on peer levels for the regular season.

Having a P5/NCAA policy of a maximize of sixteen (16) members would be a good thing. There has long been a minimum number for certain validations. It would lead to overall better stability, and knowing there is a limit to aggressive aquisitions. Perhaps not all want to go to 16 based on needs, and that should be generally OK. It would also make final choices in aquisitions more thoughtful and strategic.

They will be thoughtful and strategic anyway. The SEC won't add a school unless they increase the bottom line and we have parameters beyond that initial qualifier. They must be contiguous and fit our cultural identity (have some claim on being Southern). Beyond that we look at overall sports fit (meaning they have to offer the requisite number of required sports with facilities that meet conference standards). If they don't currently meet those requirements they have to have a plan in place to have met them prior to their joining the conference. We also look at academics. While a strong product might have average academics we look for schools who meet our athletic profile who also have high academic standings.

So the presidents (those who decide these issues) look at the profit and then decide on applicants after checking the other criteria.

A prospective member like Oklahoma is at the academic mean of the SEC, but their financial numbers are extremely strong and their sports emphasis and fit is dead on for the SEC. With Missouri they had the market impact we were looking for with the birth of the SECN and their academics were strong. Their overall sports fit was strong. But their sports history was pretty average and they had to upgrade facilities.
Texas A&M was extremely strong in all areas and as close to a no brainer addition as we could hope to find.

When we add again it will likely be two schools with a sports brand pedigree with average to strong academics, either inside of our footprint or in a contiguous state bringing a new market. For a school like Oklahoma State to get a serious look they would have to be the traveling companion of Oklahoma. Oklahoma brings an economic impact of 1 billion with them. That's the 3rd best in the nation, slightly higher than that of Alabama who is 4th, and behind Ohio State and Texas who are 1st and 2nd.

To put it another way our average economic impact for an SEC school is 1/2 billion plus per school. The SEC's overall economic impact is over 7 billion and 2 billion ahead of the Big 10. The Oklahoma pair would be 124 million each (by average) in excess of the SEC's current average. In terms of gross total revenue the two together generated 243 million between them (150 million for OU / 93 million for OSU).

It's the silly season and folks building lists and having global domination alignments is the norm.

In the SEC the additions of Arkansas, Missouri, and South Carolina were top 30ish and top 40ish programs. With A&M we added a top 10. If the SEC added Texas and Oklahoma (which would be tough to do) we would hold 7 of the top 10 programs. That would be a grand slam in realignment terms. It is also why we or another conference might consider letting Oklahoma or Texas bring another state school along. Either of those two cover the other addition and still leave us a profit, but more importantly would leave us in a revenue position that really could not be challenged by another conference adding anyone else.
Given the GoRs, and what high quality teams may be available in 5 or 6 years or so, I concur, the OU-oSu combo may be the best possibility for expanding in the contiguous way. Perhaps they will be the "ace jewels' the U. of Fla. President spoke of as a criteria a few years back. Barry Tramel, OU's soundingboard, spoke so pro-BIG in the past, as if OU is the Harvard of the lower plains, and belonged there; being another diss at the SEC. Perhaps that has all changed. Still, as much as an arrogant pain in the tailbone Texas may be, i prefer them, but not with TTU. That would be too much "Texas".

Personally, I would have favored a prime NC school from the ACC. But N.C. and VA will stay protected ACC turf. Their GoR is for a long time, and seriously doubt there will be any horse-trading. Those schools are very bonded.
02-02-2018 11:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,490
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 824
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #58
RE: What will spark the dawn of the mega-conferences?
(02-02-2018 11:45 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 08:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 07:02 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Someone logically explain the purpose of having conferences, not a separate association, consisting of 18, 20, 22, or 24 members? Such numbers significantly exceed the quantity needed to meet scheduling requirements of every sport. There are expectations, in most conference sports, everybody plays everyone else within a REASONABLE cycle. There are only 12 regular season games for fb unless someone wants to take a trip to Hawaii. In bb, home to home within a season is common and preferred. Then, there are the OOCs to be accommodated. No need for a conference to be overly incestuous as subsets. Engaging other conferences need to be encouraged on peer levels for the regular season.

Having a P5/NCAA policy of a maximize of sixteen (16) members would be a good thing. There has long been a minimum number for certain validations. It would lead to overall better stability, and knowing there is a limit to aggressive aquisitions. Perhaps not all want to go to 16 based on needs, and that should be generally OK. It would also make final choices in aquisitions more thoughtful and strategic.

They will be thoughtful and strategic anyway. The SEC won't add a school unless they increase the bottom line and we have parameters beyond that initial qualifier. They must be contiguous and fit our cultural identity (have some claim on being Southern). Beyond that we look at overall sports fit (meaning they have to offer the requisite number of required sports with facilities that meet conference standards). If they don't currently meet those requirements they have to have a plan in place to have met them prior to their joining the conference. We also look at academics. While a strong product might have average academics we look for schools who meet our athletic profile who also have high academic standings.

So the presidents (those who decide these issues) look at the profit and then decide on applicants after checking the other criteria.

A prospective member like Oklahoma is at the academic mean of the SEC, but their financial numbers are extremely strong and their sports emphasis and fit is dead on for the SEC. With Missouri they had the market impact we were looking for with the birth of the SECN and their academics were strong. Their overall sports fit was strong. But their sports history was pretty average and they had to upgrade facilities.
Texas A&M was extremely strong in all areas and as close to a no brainer addition as we could hope to find.

When we add again it will likely be two schools with a sports brand pedigree with average to strong academics, either inside of our footprint or in a contiguous state bringing a new market. For a school like Oklahoma State to get a serious look they would have to be the traveling companion of Oklahoma. Oklahoma brings an economic impact of 1 billion with them. That's the 3rd best in the nation, slightly higher than that of Alabama who is 4th, and behind Ohio State and Texas who are 1st and 2nd.

To put it another way our average economic impact for an SEC school is 1/2 billion plus per school. The SEC's overall economic impact is over 7 billion and 2 billion ahead of the Big 10. The Oklahoma pair would be 124 million each (by average) in excess of the SEC's current average. In terms of gross total revenue the two together generated 243 million between them (150 million for OU / 93 million for OSU).

It's the silly season and folks building lists and having global domination alignments is the norm.

In the SEC the additions of Arkansas, Missouri, and South Carolina were top 30ish and top 40ish programs. With A&M we added a top 10. If the SEC added Texas and Oklahoma (which would be tough to do) we would hold 7 of the top 10 programs. That would be a grand slam in realignment terms. It is also why we or another conference might consider letting Oklahoma or Texas bring another state school along. Either of those two cover the other addition and still leave us a profit, but more importantly would leave us in a revenue position that really could not be challenged by another conference adding anyone else.
Given the GoRs, and what high quality teams may be available in 5 or 6 years or so, I concur, the OU-oSu combo may be the best possibility for expanding in the contiguous way. Perhaps they will be the "ace jewels' the U. of Fla. President spoke of as a criteria a few years back. Barry Tramel, OU's soundingboard, spoke so pro-BIG in the past, as if OU is the Harvard of the lower plains, and belonged there; being another diss at the SEC. Perhaps that has all changed. Still, as much as an arrogant pain in the tailbone Texas may be, i prefer them, but not with TTU. That would be too much "Texas".

Personally, I would have favored a prime NC school from the ACC. But N.C. and VA will stay protected ACC turf. Their GoR is for a long time, and seriously doubt there will be any horse-trading. Those schools are very bonded.

The Ace Jewels are Texas and Oklahoma. The trick would be to land the pair. I'm just afraid that means taking another Texas and Oklahoma school.

As to North Carolina and Virginia the only hope to make a play there is if the economic disparity between the ACC and the B1G/SEC widens in the next 15 years and if we move to a content driven model it certainly could widen. But the Big 10 and SEC would have to work in tandem to crack that nut. And if the ACC and SEC both remain ESPN properties then it is very doubtful that any cooperation could involved the SEC. ESPN would have to want to move those schools before it could happen.

So my question to you is if it was Texas that we landed who would you want as their travel companion if not another Texas school? I don't love the idea of taking Tech but it is their last "state" school and the only one the politicians could get involved with wanting to place in a P5 for revenue reasons.

Let's say the choices were another AAU school (Iowa State and Kansas), or another state flagship (Iowa State, Kansas, West Virginia) who would you pick?

Here's the issue. Iowa State's gross total revenue is in the high 70 million range. Texas Tech is in the high 70 million range. Kansas is in the 96 million range. West Virginia's is in the 105 million range. But, Kansas only average 25,000 attendance at football last year and their economic impact estimations by the WSJ are in the 370 million range (which is okay). Texas Tech's impact numbers are in the 170 million range and their attendance is around 50k. The problem for the Eers is that their economic impact estimations are in the 74 million range which is extremely low. But they do average around the mid 60k range in attendance.

My point is there are no clear cut companions outside of OU. Kansas may be the best but they are hardly a cultural fit. They would provide Mizzou their rivalry back. Iowa State is a great school, but hardly a cultural fit and would be the farthest outlying destination in the SEC. West Virginia would only be able to squeeze in with Texas. The Horns numbers cover the WVU deficits but really gut the profit in taking Texas.

Behind Kansas the Cowboys have the best numbers.

I think in the end should Texas be interested the price would be Tech. Just like the price for OU will be the Pokes.

Kansas may be the only non cultural fit that would be considered. It gives UK another basketball blue blood. It gives Missouri back their rivalry. And they are AAU.

But as you can see it's not going to be clear cut or easy.

As to Barry Trammel he's been a Boren mouthpiece and Boren leaned Big 10. But Boren was the first to suggest that if the SEC took OSU that we could land OU. He had served at OSU prior to becoming a Senator and has a building named after him there. Plus his wife is an OSU alum. But Trammel was only doing his bidding. The more we were convinced of the Big 10 possibility the more likely we were to offer OSU too next time around. It's a political ploy that needed to sell the idea to make us bite.
02-03-2018 12:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gamecock Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,927
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 73
I Root For: South Carolina
Location:
Post: #59
RE: What will spark the dawn of the mega-conferences?
I just don’t see it happening to be honest
02-03-2018 07:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,143
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 37
I Root For: Ohio St, MAC
Location:
Post: #60
RE: What will spark the dawn of the mega-conferences?
Let's say the SEC were to land Texas and Oklahoma and the asking price is Tech and Oklahoma St. That's 18.

At that point do you push the NCAA to let you do conference semi finals and arrange in 3 divisions of 6, with a wild card getting a berth?

Do you push for hosting a title game without having divisions and move to a model where each school has some protects rivalries?

Do you toss another two schools in the mix and go to 20, utilizing a loophole that as long as you have 4 divisions of 5 and a plan in place where at the season where the Division A winner players the Division B winner and C plays D?

The way I see it, if the SEC is able to score a massive coup and get the Texlahoma 4 no matter how you slice it you either need a rule change or a rule stretch to make it wieldly.
(This post was last modified: 02-03-2018 10:32 AM by Fighting Muskie.)
02-03-2018 08:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.