Well, this was a bit unexpected.

Gordon Gee expects realignment in 6-7 years.

This is the first part in a two-part piece. The other will come on Tuesday so stay tuned for that.

Quote:“There are a few things to look at,” Gee told the Gazette-Mail. “First, people were more nervous than they needed to be. We went through the process of looking at expansion and what we discovered is we’re a very strong 10. And we found with that 10 we can do some rather remarkable things, like round-robin play. We now have our [football] championship. We’ve reinvented ourselves in some way.

“Second, [Big 12 commissioner] Bob Bowlsby is one of the best and I can’t say enough about him and the work he and his staff are doing. Then, third, we have a group of new presidents. I think the fresh eyes sometimes help. It allows us to rethink some of the things we’re doing. I feel very strongly we’re a powerful group.”

He doesn't exactly sound worried does he?

Quote:This past week, some within the media stirred up the idea the Big 12 could add programs like Arizona and Arizona State from the struggling Pac-12.

“I hear all of that,” Gee said. “And I feel very confident in our league. I do hear other people mentioning us as the place to go. It is the flipped narrative. I don’t think any of these things will happen immediately but I do think there will be a realignment of the major athletic conferences in six or seven years.”

He didn't exactly shoot the idea down.

Quote:“I don’t know how to explain it other than to say I just feel it,” he said. “I’ve been in this business for so long I can sometimes just get a sense about its changing nature.”

WVU followers might see that as cause for concern. The Mountaineers, after all, are serious geographic outliers from other Big 12 schools. Yet Gee said he believes West Virginia is in good shape.

“Oh yeah,” he said. “We’ve become very competitive. People need to look around. The ACC is a great conference but it’s been struggling in a number of areas. The Pac-12 has been having terrible struggles.

“With us, I think we’ve brought a great deal to the Big 12. Being in the Eastern time zone we’ve brought the league exposure. We have one of the most recognizable logos in the country, if not the world. We have some of the most passionate fans.

Crazy theory time...

What if the Big 12 lures a few PAC schools away in a few years with the promise of a profitable network?

What if Texas so badly wants to preserve what they have in the Big 12 that they may actually sacrifice a little bit in the 3rd Tier and allow the LHN contract to be opened just so a deal could get done? They'd likely make up any difference in the increased value of the 1st and 2nd Tier anyway as new contracts get signed.

(05-27-2018 10:05 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Well, this was a bit unexpected.

Gordon Gee expects realignment in 6-7 years.

This is the first part in a two-part piece. The other will come on Tuesday so stay tuned for that.

Quote:“There are a few things to look at,” Gee told the Gazette-Mail. “First, people were more nervous than they needed to be. We went through the process of looking at expansion and what we discovered is we’re a very strong 10. And we found with that 10 we can do some rather remarkable things, like round-robin play. We now have our [football] championship. We’ve reinvented ourselves in some way.

“Second, [Big 12 commissioner] Bob Bowlsby is one of the best and I can’t say enough about him and the work he and his staff are doing. Then, third, we have a group of new presidents. I think the fresh eyes sometimes help. It allows us to rethink some of the things we’re doing. I feel very strongly we’re a powerful group.”

He doesn't exactly sound worried does he?

Quote:This past week, some within the media stirred up the idea the Big 12 could add programs like Arizona and Arizona State from the struggling Pac-12.

“I hear all of that,” Gee said. “And I feel very confident in our league. I do hear other people mentioning us as the place to go. It is the flipped narrative. I don’t think any of these things will happen immediately but I do think there will be a realignment of the major athletic conferences in six or seven years.”

He didn't exactly shoot the idea down.

Quote:“I don’t know how to explain it other than to say I just feel it,” he said. “I’ve been in this business for so long I can sometimes just get a sense about its changing nature.”

WVU followers might see that as cause for concern. The Mountaineers, after all, are serious geographic outliers from other Big 12 schools. Yet Gee said he believes West Virginia is in good shape.

“Oh yeah,” he said. “We’ve become very competitive. People need to look around. The ACC is a great conference but it’s been struggling in a number of areas. The Pac-12 has been having terrible struggles.

“With us, I think we’ve brought a great deal to the Big 12. Being in the Eastern time zone we’ve brought the league exposure. We have one of the most recognizable logos in the country, if not the world. We have some of the most passionate fans.

Crazy theory time...

What if the Big 12 lures a few PAC schools away in a few years with the promise of a profitable network?

What if Texas so badly wants to preserve what they have in the Big 12 that they may actually sacrifice a little bit in the 3rd Tier and allow the LHN contract to be opened just so a deal could get done? They'd likely make up any difference in the increased value of the 1st and 2nd Tier anyway as new contracts get signed.

1. It's not Gordon Gee's first rodeo. He's was president at Vanderbilt in the SEC, served at Ohio State in the Big 10, and now at West Virginia in the Big 12. What he is doing here is trying to steady the boat because it is in his self interest to do so considering his present position.

2. It's easier to build a a strong conference around Texas and Oklahoma than it is to do so around North Carolina and Duke.

3. The PAC 12 is too remote and at such a great difference that nobody is leaving them and the two Arizona schools draw way too much enrollment from Southern California to screw it up by moving to a Texas centered conference where they won't draw flies for enrollment.

I think it much more likely that if ESPN wants a bigger slice of the Big 10, good will beyond with the SEC, and a great way to appease Texas that everything gets put on hold until 2035 and then we move to 4 conferences. And the odd man out is the conference that is now 5th in just about every statistic.

And it could happen by 2024-5. All it would take is for the schools of the ACC to compare their earnings with a full unencumbered distribution of the ACCN to their potential earnings in the SEC, Big 10, and Big 12. They should have their first solid payouts from they ACCN by 2022.

Let me add to the scenario...

ESPN wants to buy content right?

-Easiest way to buy the PAC is to break them up so you don't have to worry about their M.O.

-ESPN uses the LHN to create a Big 12 Network and attract a few key PAC 12 properties for content purposes.

-B1G takes advantage by adding Colorado.

At this point, the pressure is on the ACC. If their network doesn't perform to a high standard then they are vulnerable especially if the SEC and B1G can't really raid the Big 12 for any valuable pieces.

I think we have to be realistic about one thing. A Tier 3 conference network is never going to bring revenue that matches your 1st and 2nd tier. The reality for the ACC is that unless they far outpace what the SECN has put out then they will be pretty far behind the other majors even with a network in their pocket.

(05-27-2018 10:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2018 10:05 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Well, this was a bit unexpected.

Gordon Gee expects realignment in 6-7 years.

This is the first part in a two-part piece. The other will come on Tuesday so stay tuned for that.

Quote:“There are a few things to look at,” Gee told the Gazette-Mail. “First, people were more nervous than they needed to be. We went through the process of looking at expansion and what we discovered is we’re a very strong 10. And we found with that 10 we can do some rather remarkable things, like round-robin play. We now have our [football] championship. We’ve reinvented ourselves in some way.

“Second, [Big 12 commissioner] Bob Bowlsby is one of the best and I can’t say enough about him and the work he and his staff are doing. Then, third, we have a group of new presidents. I think the fresh eyes sometimes help. It allows us to rethink some of the things we’re doing. I feel very strongly we’re a powerful group.”

He doesn't exactly sound worried does he?

Quote:This past week, some within the media stirred up the idea the Big 12 could add programs like Arizona and Arizona State from the struggling Pac-12.

“I hear all of that,” Gee said. “And I feel very confident in our league. I do hear other people mentioning us as the place to go. It is the flipped narrative. I don’t think any of these things will happen immediately but I do think there will be a realignment of the major athletic conferences in six or seven years.”

He didn't exactly shoot the idea down.

Quote:“I don’t know how to explain it other than to say I just feel it,” he said. “I’ve been in this business for so long I can sometimes just get a sense about its changing nature.”

WVU followers might see that as cause for concern. The Mountaineers, after all, are serious geographic outliers from other Big 12 schools. Yet Gee said he believes West Virginia is in good shape.

“Oh yeah,” he said. “We’ve become very competitive. People need to look around. The ACC is a great conference but it’s been struggling in a number of areas. The Pac-12 has been having terrible struggles.

“With us, I think we’ve brought a great deal to the Big 12. Being in the Eastern time zone we’ve brought the league exposure. We have one of the most recognizable logos in the country, if not the world. We have some of the most passionate fans.

Crazy theory time...

What if the Big 12 lures a few PAC schools away in a few years with the promise of a profitable network?

What if Texas so badly wants to preserve what they have in the Big 12 that they may actually sacrifice a little bit in the 3rd Tier and allow the LHN contract to be opened just so a deal could get done? They'd likely make up any difference in the increased value of the 1st and 2nd Tier anyway as new contracts get signed.

1. It's not Gordon Gee's first rodeo. He's was president at Vanderbilt in the SEC, served at Ohio State in the Big 10, and now at West Virginia in the Big 12. What he is doing here is trying to steady the boat because it is in his self interest to do so considering his present position.

2. It's easier to build a a strong conference around Texas and Oklahoma than it is to do so around North Carolina and Duke.

3. The PAC 12 is too remote and at such a great difference that nobody is leaving them and the two Arizona schools draw way too much enrollment from Southern California to screw it up by moving to a Texas centered conference where they won't draw flies for enrollment.

I think it much more likely that if ESPN wants a bigger slice of the Big 10, good will beyond with the SEC, and a great way to appease Texas that everything gets put on hold until 2035 and then we move to 4 conferences. And the odd man out is the conference that is now 5th in just about every statistic.

And it could happen by 2024-5. All it would take is for the schools of the ACC to compare their earnings with a full unencumbered distribution of the ACCN to their potential earnings in the SEC, Big 10, and Big 12. They should have their first solid payouts from they ACCN by 2022.

I was typing my above comment when you posted so I hadn't seen this yet, but this was sort of my thinking.

I don't think the ACC Network's prospects are that great.

And I do agree it's easier to build around Texas and Oklahoma.

I will say though that there are a couple of things that make me question whether or not the PAC would really survive intact...the weak passion of their fan bases which drives down the value of their network and other contracts.

That and the overall economic issues that the state of CA is having. People are starting to flee that state and in the long run, I'm not sure schools like Arizona and Arizona State would really suffer by not being in the same conference. The proximity is still there...housing is still outrageous back in CA...and people are leaving for places like other Western states including TX.

With that said, I don't think the PAC would simply shatter into a million pieces or be split up between other leagues. It will always be around, but I wonder if we don't end up with a PAC 8 again?

(05-27-2018 10:45 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-27-2018 10:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2018 10:05 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Well, this was a bit unexpected.

Gordon Gee expects realignment in 6-7 years.

This is the first part in a two-part piece. The other will come on Tuesday so stay tuned for that.

Quote:“There are a few things to look at,” Gee told the Gazette-Mail. “First, people were more nervous than they needed to be. We went through the process of looking at expansion and what we discovered is we’re a very strong 10. And we found with that 10 we can do some rather remarkable things, like round-robin play. We now have our [football] championship. We’ve reinvented ourselves in some way.

“Second, [Big 12 commissioner] Bob Bowlsby is one of the best and I can’t say enough about him and the work he and his staff are doing. Then, third, we have a group of new presidents. I think the fresh eyes sometimes help. It allows us to rethink some of the things we’re doing. I feel very strongly we’re a powerful group.”

He doesn't exactly sound worried does he?

Quote:This past week, some within the media stirred up the idea the Big 12 could add programs like Arizona and Arizona State from the struggling Pac-12.

“I hear all of that,” Gee said. “And I feel very confident in our league. I do hear other people mentioning us as the place to go. It is the flipped narrative. I don’t think any of these things will happen immediately but I do think there will be a realignment of the major athletic conferences in six or seven years.”

He didn't exactly shoot the idea down.

Quote:“I don’t know how to explain it other than to say I just feel it,” he said. “I’ve been in this business for so long I can sometimes just get a sense about its changing nature.”

WVU followers might see that as cause for concern. The Mountaineers, after all, are serious geographic outliers from other Big 12 schools. Yet Gee said he believes West Virginia is in good shape.

“Oh yeah,” he said. “We’ve become very competitive. People need to look around. The ACC is a great conference but it’s been struggling in a number of areas. The Pac-12 has been having terrible struggles.

“With us, I think we’ve brought a great deal to the Big 12. Being in the Eastern time zone we’ve brought the league exposure. We have one of the most recognizable logos in the country, if not the world. We have some of the most passionate fans.

Crazy theory time...

What if the Big 12 lures a few PAC schools away in a few years with the promise of a profitable network?

What if Texas so badly wants to preserve what they have in the Big 12 that they may actually sacrifice a little bit in the 3rd Tier and allow the LHN contract to be opened just so a deal could get done? They'd likely make up any difference in the increased value of the 1st and 2nd Tier anyway as new contracts get signed.

1. It's not Gordon Gee's first rodeo. He's was president at Vanderbilt in the SEC, served at Ohio State in the Big 10, and now at West Virginia in the Big 12. What he is doing here is trying to steady the boat because it is in his self interest to do so considering his present position.

2. It's easier to build a a strong conference around Texas and Oklahoma than it is to do so around North Carolina and Duke.

3. The PAC 12 is too remote and at such a great difference that nobody is leaving them and the two Arizona schools draw way too much enrollment from Southern California to screw it up by moving to a Texas centered conference where they won't draw flies for enrollment.

I think it much more likely that if ESPN wants a bigger slice of the Big 10, good will beyond with the SEC, and a great way to appease Texas that everything gets put on hold until 2035 and then we move to 4 conferences. And the odd man out is the conference that is now 5th in just about every statistic.

And it could happen by 2024-5. All it would take is for the schools of the ACC to compare their earnings with a full unencumbered distribution of the ACCN to their potential earnings in the SEC, Big 10, and Big 12. They should have their first solid payouts from they ACCN by 2022.

I was typing my above comment when you posted so I hadn't seen this yet, but this was sort of my thinking.

I don't think the ACC Network's prospects are that great.

And I do agree it's easier to build around Texas and Oklahoma.

I will say though that there are a couple of things that make me question whether or not the PAC would really survive intact...the weak passion of their fan bases which drives down the value of their network and other contracts.

That and the overall economic issues that the state of CA is having. People are starting to flee that state and in the long run, I'm not sure schools like Arizona and Arizona State would really suffer by not being in the same conference. The proximity is still there...housing is still outrageous back in CA...and people are leaving for places like other Western states including TX.

With that said, I don't think the PAC would simply shatter into a million pieces or be split up between other leagues. It will always be around, but I wonder if we don't end up with a PAC 8 again?

I simply think this screams P3.

Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Iowa State plus Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Oregon State, Washington State, Colorado & Utah plus T.C.U.

The current Big 10 plus Duke, Notre Dame, Boston College, Syracuse, North Carolina, and Virginia.

The current SEC plus Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, and Miami. There are three schools there which could AAU in the not so distant future: Miami, N.C. State and Virginia Tech in that order. And Georgia Tech is AAU.

Out would be: Baylor, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Wake Forest, & West Virginia.

That makes more sense than pushing the P4 issue. Geographically it works.

(05-27-2018 11:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2018 10:45 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-27-2018 10:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2018 10:05 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Well, this was a bit unexpected.

Gordon Gee expects realignment in 6-7 years.

This is the first part in a two-part piece. The other will come on Tuesday so stay tuned for that.

Quote:“There are a few things to look at,” Gee told the Gazette-Mail. “First, people were more nervous than they needed to be. We went through the process of looking at expansion and what we discovered is we’re a very strong 10. And we found with that 10 we can do some rather remarkable things, like round-robin play. We now have our [football] championship. We’ve reinvented ourselves in some way.

“Second, [Big 12 commissioner] Bob Bowlsby is one of the best and I can’t say enough about him and the work he and his staff are doing. Then, third, we have a group of new presidents. I think the fresh eyes sometimes help. It allows us to rethink some of the things we’re doing. I feel very strongly we’re a powerful group.”

He doesn't exactly sound worried does he?

Quote:This past week, some within the media stirred up the idea the Big 12 could add programs like Arizona and Arizona State from the struggling Pac-12.

“I hear all of that,” Gee said. “And I feel very confident in our league. I do hear other people mentioning us as the place to go. It is the flipped narrative. I don’t think any of these things will happen immediately but I do think there will be a realignment of the major athletic conferences in six or seven years.”

He didn't exactly shoot the idea down.

Quote:“I don’t know how to explain it other than to say I just feel it,” he said. “I’ve been in this business for so long I can sometimes just get a sense about its changing nature.”

WVU followers might see that as cause for concern. The Mountaineers, after all, are serious geographic outliers from other Big 12 schools. Yet Gee said he believes West Virginia is in good shape.

“Oh yeah,” he said. “We’ve become very competitive. People need to look around. The ACC is a great conference but it’s been struggling in a number of areas. The Pac-12 has been having terrible struggles.

“With us, I think we’ve brought a great deal to the Big 12. Being in the Eastern time zone we’ve brought the league exposure. We have one of the most recognizable logos in the country, if not the world. We have some of the most passionate fans.

Crazy theory time...

What if the Big 12 lures a few PAC schools away in a few years with the promise of a profitable network?

What if Texas so badly wants to preserve what they have in the Big 12 that they may actually sacrifice a little bit in the 3rd Tier and allow the LHN contract to be opened just so a deal could get done? They'd likely make up any difference in the increased value of the 1st and 2nd Tier anyway as new contracts get signed.

1. It's not Gordon Gee's first rodeo. He's was president at Vanderbilt in the SEC, served at Ohio State in the Big 10, and now at West Virginia in the Big 12. What he is doing here is trying to steady the boat because it is in his self interest to do so considering his present position.

2. It's easier to build a a strong conference around Texas and Oklahoma than it is to do so around North Carolina and Duke.

3. The PAC 12 is too remote and at such a great difference that nobody is leaving them and the two Arizona schools draw way too much enrollment from Southern California to screw it up by moving to a Texas centered conference where they won't draw flies for enrollment.

I think it much more likely that if ESPN wants a bigger slice of the Big 10, good will beyond with the SEC, and a great way to appease Texas that everything gets put on hold until 2035 and then we move to 4 conferences. And the odd man out is the conference that is now 5th in just about every statistic.

And it could happen by 2024-5. All it would take is for the schools of the ACC to compare their earnings with a full unencumbered distribution of the ACCN to their potential earnings in the SEC, Big 10, and Big 12. They should have their first solid payouts from they ACCN by 2022.

I was typing my above comment when you posted so I hadn't seen this yet, but this was sort of my thinking.

I don't think the ACC Network's prospects are that great.

And I do agree it's easier to build around Texas and Oklahoma.

I will say though that there are a couple of things that make me question whether or not the PAC would really survive intact...the weak passion of their fan bases which drives down the value of their network and other contracts.

That and the overall economic issues that the state of CA is having. People are starting to flee that state and in the long run, I'm not sure schools like Arizona and Arizona State would really suffer by not being in the same conference. The proximity is still there...housing is still outrageous back in CA...and people are leaving for places like other Western states including TX.

With that said, I don't think the PAC would simply shatter into a million pieces or be split up between other leagues. It will always be around, but I wonder if we don't end up with a PAC 8 again?

I simply think this screams P3.

Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Iowa State plus Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Oregon State, Washington State, Colorado & Utah plus T.C.U.

The current Big 10 plus Duke, Notre Dame, Boston College, Syracuse, North Carolina, and Virginia.

The current SEC plus Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, and Miami. There are three schools there which could AAU in the not so distant future: Miami, N.C. State and Virginia Tech in that order. And Georgia Tech is AAU.

Out would be: Baylor, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Wake Forest, & West Virginia.

That makes more sense than pushing the P4 issue. Geographically it works.

Well, it would be a lot more efficient that way.

The four league scenario leaves us with 2 strong conferences and 2 mediocre leagues. More than that, it's too hard to divide everything up equitably with an eye towards moves that would be in the genuine best interest of each conference.

When you boil it down to 3, they're all fairly equal although the Western league may still lag in revenue just a bit.

It also fits the timeline.

There's also the added benefit of a simplified CFP. You can get all the champs in, but still have room for an at-large bid. This means you can choose the "4 best" and leave open the possibility that a G5 champ could make it in. And that's all the political cover that you need.

A lot has changed college football since the last realignment merry-go-round.


1st, College football playoff. As long as a team is in a P5 conference. It actually stands a chance in getting a invite. No longer is the Big 10 or SEC have a favorable advantage.


2nd, Championship games. The Big 10 and PAC 10 expanded to 12 members and beyond because the NCAA wouldn't allow them to host a championship game. But now it is allowed with smaller member conferences. Like the Big 12 currently has and the Sunbelt will have.


3rd, Contract bowls. Yet another foundation shatter effect. Now conferences have exclusive rights to certain premier bowl games.


4th, New Media. Soon 5G will be everywhere. This will change content platforms more than they have ever changed. To even try and predict what platform will dominate is an exercise in futility. Maybe its Amazon, or ESPN, or CBS online. It also could be a company like AT&T. Content is king.



These are the reasons why I've come to believe that college football is headed for a great disruption. Way to many ego's and way to much money. A consolidation of power instead of an expansion of it. No longer do conferences need to be huge to garner massive payouts from cable networks. It really will be about advertisement generation and game day experience.

So I'm predicting three things. 1st, The rebirth of the SWC. A conference based on the states of Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. 2nd, Season event. SEC vs. SWC or ACC vs SEC match ups. These events will happen on certain weekends during the football season. 3rd, The expansion of the playoff and tournament style bowl games.

(05-28-2018 08:59 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  A lot has changed college football since the last realignment merry-go-round.


1st, College football playoff. As long as a team is in a P5 conference. It actually stands a chance in getting a invite. No longer is the Big 10 or SEC have a favorable advantage.


2nd, Championship games. The Big 10 and PAC 10 expanded to 12 members and beyond because the NCAA wouldn't allow them to host a championship game. But now it is allowed with smaller member conferences. Like the Big 12 currently has and the Sunbelt will have.


3rd, Contract bowls. Yet another foundation shatter effect. Now conferences have exclusive rights to certain premier bowl games.


4th, New Media. Soon 5G will be everywhere. This will change content platforms more than they have ever changed. To even try and predict what platform will dominate is an exercise in futility. Maybe its Amazon, or ESPN, or CBS online. It also could be a company like AT&T. Content is king.



These are the reasons why I've come to believe that college football is headed for a great disruption. Way to many ego's and way to much money. A consolidation of power instead of an expansion of it. No longer do conferences need to be huge to garner massive payouts from cable networks. It really will be about advertisement generation and game day experience.

So I'm predicting three things. 1st, The rebirth of the SWC. A conference based on the states of Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. 2nd, Season event. SEC vs. SWC or ACC vs SEC match ups. These events will happen on certain weekends during the football season. 3rd, The expansion of the playoff and tournament style bowl games.

Well thought out and considered, however, I disagree. At the risk of sounding overly theological/philosophical, I think that the idea of a college football apocalypse is a faulty one. A "great disruption" has been possible several times in recent years, and it has not happened yet. Instead we have gotten "small disruptions" that gradually change the alignment of the conferences.

The Texahoma 4 going to the PAC would have been a great disruption, instead, we got a scattering of 4 other Big 12 teams.

A great raid of the ACC could have been a great disruption, but instead, the Big 10 took Maryland ("easily" replaced by Louisville) and Rutgers.

At the time, the Big 12 could have caused a great disruption by taking multiple teams from the AAC, perhaps turning it into a P5 and a G4, but they stood pat.

Recent history suggests not a cataclysmic event in the college football world, but gradual shifts and realignments as the conferences adapt to things like new media.

So, 1: Rebirth of the SWC: Possibility: low, particularly with Arkansas as a listed state, as Arkansas isn't going to leave the SEC, and Ark St doesn't add anything yet. But the idea of an even more Texas-centric conference isn't as low, probably at a medium.

2: Season events: Possibility: medium; if natural rivals work themselves out, this would be an easy thing to do: SEC East vs. ACC South one week, SEC West vs. SWC another.

3: Expansion of playoffs: possibility: high, as long as the money is there, it is inevitable. I don't think the expansion of the playoffs end conference championship games though, and the legnthening of the season is certainly an issue.

History repeating itself is more likely: the weakest conferences are majorly impacted by expansion (Big East gone, WAC gone, Big 12 loses 4 schools), and the next tier are minorly impacted (ACC loses Maryland).

The weakest conferences right now are the PAC-12 and the Big 12.

Since the OP was on West Virginia, lets say that the Big 12 is able to snatch Arizona/St. This seems like a good thing for everyone as the Big 12 gets its P5 teams and expands into the Phoenix market. But that makes WVU uneasy as travel is already a difficulty. At that point, they might convince the ACC to take to take them. (With ND)

With WVU leaving, OK/State also choose to leave and join the SEC.

The Big 12 (-2 +2 -1 -2) is now at 9 schools and has a westward emphasis.

The PAC is back to 10. They stop the California schools, the northwestern schools and Colorado and Utah from also leaving by giving the PAC the Big 12 deal: Same amount of money for 10 schools as for 12.

The Big 12 takes: BYU, Colorado State, Houston. They consider UNLV and SDSU but choose to stand pat.

The MWC finally gets UTEP as a backfill.

We are left with: ACC/SEC at 16, Big 10 at 14 and wondering about taking PAC-12 schools, Big 12 at 12, and PAC 12 at 10.

ACC/SEC start pushing for conference semis, but don't quite have the votes yet.

With the way Gee predicted the next realignment, it sounded like he expects something fairly significant.

Of course, the word "major" is subjective in a context like this. The last movement was major in my opinion because it affected several leagues and led to a lot of uncertainty moving forward.

I would expect the next round to be at least as disruptive simply because the ball is moving in a clear direction when you look back at where we started 30 years ago.

Someone's conference is going to essentially die off this time, I think. I'm not sure which one it's going to be, but we've already lost 2 major leagues in the last 30 years....SWC and the Big East.

So I think we'll see another league die off in a round of major moves or we won't hardly see any movement at all because the market will be bearing all it can. I think it has to be one or the other.

(05-28-2018 02:09 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  With the way Gee predicted the next realignment, it sounded like he expects something fairly significant.

Of course, the word "major" is subjective in a context like this. The last movement was major in my opinion because it affected several leagues and led to a lot of uncertainty moving forward.

I would expect the next round to be at least as disruptive simply because the ball is moving in a clear direction when you look back at where we started 30 years ago.

Someone's conference is going to essentially die off this time, I think. I'm not sure which one it's going to be, but we've already lost 2 major leagues in the last 30 years....SWC and the Big East.

So I think we'll see another league die off in a round of major moves or we won't hardly see any movement at all because the market will be bearing all it can. I think it has to be one or the other.

Well ATU the networks would optimally like to be able to do it without ticking off the Big 10, or SEC, or Texas & OU. So you tell me which one could be sacrificed and satisfy all 3 of those entities? Oh, and I'll give you a hint. It's the one with the poorest attendance, the poorest revenue, and at most the 2nd fewest number of actual viewers vs its total population. And I'll give you another hint, which one of the conferences hasn't been production ready at their campus sites, but is now getting there in preparation for a network that ESPN has been dubious about for some time? Once those schools production standards are up those of the BTN and SECN moving them will be a helluva lot easier, "'specially if it don't pay much!"

(05-28-2018 02:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-28-2018 02:09 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  With the way Gee predicted the next realignment, it sounded like he expects something fairly significant.

Of course, the word "major" is subjective in a context like this. The last movement was major in my opinion because it affected several leagues and led to a lot of uncertainty moving forward.

I would expect the next round to be at least as disruptive simply because the ball is moving in a clear direction when you look back at where we started 30 years ago.

Someone's conference is going to essentially die off this time, I think. I'm not sure which one it's going to be, but we've already lost 2 major leagues in the last 30 years....SWC and the Big East.

So I think we'll see another league die off in a round of major moves or we won't hardly see any movement at all because the market will be bearing all it can. I think it has to be one or the other.

Well ATU the networks would optimally like to be able to do it without ticking off the Big 10, or SEC, or Texas & OU. So you tell me which one could be sacrificed and satisfy all 3 of those entities? Oh, and I'll give you a hint. It's the one with the poorest attendance, the poorest revenue, and at most the 2nd fewest number of actual viewers vs its total population. And I'll give you another hint, which one of the conferences hasn't been production ready at their campus sites, but is now getting there in preparation for a network that ESPN has been dubious about for some time? Once those schools production standards are up those of the BTN and SECN moving them will be a helluva lot easier, "'specially if it don't pay much!"

My question would be...

From ESPN's perspective, once you've dismantled the ACC then what do you do with the ACC Network? That's an interesting entity to drag and drop.

(05-28-2018 04:39 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-28-2018 02:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-28-2018 02:09 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  With the way Gee predicted the next realignment, it sounded like he expects something fairly significant.

Of course, the word "major" is subjective in a context like this. The last movement was major in my opinion because it affected several leagues and led to a lot of uncertainty moving forward.

I would expect the next round to be at least as disruptive simply because the ball is moving in a clear direction when you look back at where we started 30 years ago.

Someone's conference is going to essentially die off this time, I think. I'm not sure which one it's going to be, but we've already lost 2 major leagues in the last 30 years....SWC and the Big East.

So I think we'll see another league die off in a round of major moves or we won't hardly see any movement at all because the market will be bearing all it can. I think it has to be one or the other.

Well ATU the networks would optimally like to be able to do it without ticking off the Big 10, or SEC, or Texas & OU. So you tell me which one could be sacrificed and satisfy all 3 of those entities? Oh, and I'll give you a hint. It's the one with the poorest attendance, the poorest revenue, and at most the 2nd fewest number of actual viewers vs its total population. And I'll give you another hint, which one of the conferences hasn't been production ready at their campus sites, but is now getting there in preparation for a network that ESPN has been dubious about for some time? Once those schools production standards are up those of the BTN and SECN moving them will be a helluva lot easier, "'specially if it don't pay much!"

My question would be...

From ESPN's perspective, once you've dismantled the ACC then what do you do with the ACC Network? That's an interesting entity to drag and drop.

It could be folded into the SECN, or used to become a new network for something that might include the P5 left behinds and the best of the AAC.

Let's say that the SEC only takes 4 of the ACC schools and the Big 10 only takes 4. While the PAC take 6 from the Big 12. Now you have 11 schools outside of that P3. Add the best 7 of the AAC and you have a 4th P4, but one that does not require the Big 10, SEC, or PAC to stray from their standards, and in the case of the PAC one that doesn't stray too far from their standards.

SEC:

Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, N.C. State

Alabama, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M

B1G:

Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Penn State, Virginia

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers

Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

PAC:

Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Utah

California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State

New P4:

Central Florida, East Carolina, Georgia Tech, Memphis, South Florida, Wake Forest

Boston College, Connecticut, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Baylor, Cincinnati, Houston, Kansas State, Louisville, T.C.U.


Now that ACCN could be converted to this conference's network totally owned by ESPN.

ESPN would maintain the majority control of the SEC & SECN and by virtu of what was offered to the Big 10 have better than 50% control of their T1 & T2.

FOX and ESPN split the PAC rights as they do now. If ESPN gains control of that network it would be by converting the LHN.

(05-28-2018 07:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-28-2018 04:39 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-28-2018 02:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-28-2018 02:09 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  With the way Gee predicted the next realignment, it sounded like he expects something fairly significant.

Of course, the word "major" is subjective in a context like this. The last movement was major in my opinion because it affected several leagues and led to a lot of uncertainty moving forward.

I would expect the next round to be at least as disruptive simply because the ball is moving in a clear direction when you look back at where we started 30 years ago.

Someone's conference is going to essentially die off this time, I think. I'm not sure which one it's going to be, but we've already lost 2 major leagues in the last 30 years....SWC and the Big East.

So I think we'll see another league die off in a round of major moves or we won't hardly see any movement at all because the market will be bearing all it can. I think it has to be one or the other.

Well ATU the networks would optimally like to be able to do it without ticking off the Big 10, or SEC, or Texas & OU. So you tell me which one could be sacrificed and satisfy all 3 of those entities? Oh, and I'll give you a hint. It's the one with the poorest attendance, the poorest revenue, and at most the 2nd fewest number of actual viewers vs its total population. And I'll give you another hint, which one of the conferences hasn't been production ready at their campus sites, but is now getting there in preparation for a network that ESPN has been dubious about for some time? Once those schools production standards are up those of the BTN and SECN moving them will be a helluva lot easier, "'specially if it don't pay much!"

My question would be...

From ESPN's perspective, once you've dismantled the ACC then what do you do with the ACC Network? That's an interesting entity to drag and drop.

It could be folded into the SECN, or used to become a new network for something that might include the P5 left behinds and the best of the AAC.

Let's say that the SEC only takes 4 of the ACC schools and the Big 10 only takes 4. While the PAC take 6 from the Big 12. Now you have 11 schools outside of that P3. Add the best 7 of the AAC and you have a 4th P4, but one that does not require the Big 10, SEC, or PAC to stray from their standards, and in the case of the PAC one that doesn't stray too far from their standards.

SEC:

Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, N.C. State

Alabama, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M

B1G:

Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Penn State, Virginia

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers

Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

PAC:

Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Utah

California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State

New P4:

Central Florida, East Carolina, Georgia Tech, Memphis, South Florida, Wake Forest

Boston College, Connecticut, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Baylor, Cincinnati, Houston, Kansas State, Louisville, T.C.U.


Now that ACCN could be converted to this conference's network totally owned by ESPN.

ESPN would maintain the majority control of the SEC & SECN and by virtu of what was offered to the Big 10 have better than 50% control of their T1 & T2.

FOX and ESPN split the PAC rights as they do now. If ESPN gains control of that network it would be by converting the LHN.

If I'm an ACC school that's not among that 8 though, I don't go for that deal. I'd ride out the GOR and see what happens in the 2030s.

I'd probably be no worse off once the GOR ended, and I'd get some decent ACC money in the interim. Not to mention, there's the off chance I could use that 15 year period to transform myself into something more attractive when judgement day finally comes.

I think you'd have to take a number large enough to disband the league and end the GOR. I'm assuming that number is 12 so you could leave as many as 3 out.

(05-28-2018 09:30 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-28-2018 07:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-28-2018 04:39 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-28-2018 02:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-28-2018 02:09 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  With the way Gee predicted the next realignment, it sounded like he expects something fairly significant.

Of course, the word "major" is subjective in a context like this. The last movement was major in my opinion because it affected several leagues and led to a lot of uncertainty moving forward.

I would expect the next round to be at least as disruptive simply because the ball is moving in a clear direction when you look back at where we started 30 years ago.

Someone's conference is going to essentially die off this time, I think. I'm not sure which one it's going to be, but we've already lost 2 major leagues in the last 30 years....SWC and the Big East.

So I think we'll see another league die off in a round of major moves or we won't hardly see any movement at all because the market will be bearing all it can. I think it has to be one or the other.

Well ATU the networks would optimally like to be able to do it without ticking off the Big 10, or SEC, or Texas & OU. So you tell me which one could be sacrificed and satisfy all 3 of those entities? Oh, and I'll give you a hint. It's the one with the poorest attendance, the poorest revenue, and at most the 2nd fewest number of actual viewers vs its total population. And I'll give you another hint, which one of the conferences hasn't been production ready at their campus sites, but is now getting there in preparation for a network that ESPN has been dubious about for some time? Once those schools production standards are up those of the BTN and SECN moving them will be a helluva lot easier, "'specially if it don't pay much!"

My question would be...

From ESPN's perspective, once you've dismantled the ACC then what do you do with the ACC Network? That's an interesting entity to drag and drop.

It could be folded into the SECN, or used to become a new network for something that might include the P5 left behinds and the best of the AAC.

Let's say that the SEC only takes 4 of the ACC schools and the Big 10 only takes 4. While the PAC take 6 from the Big 12. Now you have 11 schools outside of that P3. Add the best 7 of the AAC and you have a 4th P4, but one that does not require the Big 10, SEC, or PAC to stray from their standards, and in the case of the PAC one that doesn't stray too far from their standards.

SEC:

Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, N.C. State

Alabama, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M

B1G:

Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Penn State, Virginia

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers

Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

PAC:

Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Utah

California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State

New P4:

Central Florida, East Carolina, Georgia Tech, Memphis, South Florida, Wake Forest

Boston College, Connecticut, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Baylor, Cincinnati, Houston, Kansas State, Louisville, T.C.U.


Now that ACCN could be converted to this conference's network totally owned by ESPN.

ESPN would maintain the majority control of the SEC & SECN and by virtu of what was offered to the Big 10 have better than 50% control of their T1 & T2.

FOX and ESPN split the PAC rights as they do now. If ESPN gains control of that network it would be by converting the LHN.

If I'm an ACC school that's not among that 8 though, I don't go for that deal. I'd ride out the GOR and see what happens in the 2030s.

I'd probably be no worse off once the GOR ended, and I'd get some decent ACC money in the interim. Not to mention, there's the off chance I could use that 15 year period to transform myself into something more attractive when judgement day finally comes.

I think you'd have to take a number large enough to disband the league and end the GOR. I'm assuming that number is 12 so you could leave as many as 3 out.

No you don't. The deal is a simple one. They get a P4 home in a new P4 conference if they go along. Otherwise there is no P4 home after the GOR. I think they call that an offer you can't refuse. But it works and is sometimes necessary.

(05-28-2018 09:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-28-2018 09:30 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-28-2018 07:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-28-2018 04:39 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-28-2018 02:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well ATU the networks would optimally like to be able to do it without ticking off the Big 10, or SEC, or Texas & OU. So you tell me which one could be sacrificed and satisfy all 3 of those entities? Oh, and I'll give you a hint. It's the one with the poorest attendance, the poorest revenue, and at most the 2nd fewest number of actual viewers vs its total population. And I'll give you another hint, which one of the conferences hasn't been production ready at their campus sites, but is now getting there in preparation for a network that ESPN has been dubious about for some time? Once those schools production standards are up those of the BTN and SECN moving them will be a helluva lot easier, "'specially if it don't pay much!"

My question would be...

From ESPN's perspective, once you've dismantled the ACC then what do you do with the ACC Network? That's an interesting entity to drag and drop.

It could be folded into the SECN, or used to become a new network for something that might include the P5 left behinds and the best of the AAC.

Let's say that the SEC only takes 4 of the ACC schools and the Big 10 only takes 4. While the PAC take 6 from the Big 12. Now you have 11 schools outside of that P3. Add the best 7 of the AAC and you have a 4th P4, but one that does not require the Big 10, SEC, or PAC to stray from their standards, and in the case of the PAC one that doesn't stray too far from their standards.

SEC:

Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, N.C. State

Alabama, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M

B1G:

Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Penn State, Virginia

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers

Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

PAC:

Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Utah

California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State

New P4:

Central Florida, East Carolina, Georgia Tech, Memphis, South Florida, Wake Forest

Boston College, Connecticut, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Baylor, Cincinnati, Houston, Kansas State, Louisville, T.C.U.


Now that ACCN could be converted to this conference's network totally owned by ESPN.

ESPN would maintain the majority control of the SEC & SECN and by virtu of what was offered to the Big 10 have better than 50% control of their T1 & T2.

FOX and ESPN split the PAC rights as they do now. If ESPN gains control of that network it would be by converting the LHN.

If I'm an ACC school that's not among that 8 though, I don't go for that deal. I'd ride out the GOR and see what happens in the 2030s.

I'd probably be no worse off once the GOR ended, and I'd get some decent ACC money in the interim. Not to mention, there's the off chance I could use that 15 year period to transform myself into something more attractive when judgement day finally comes.

I think you'd have to take a number large enough to disband the league and end the GOR. I'm assuming that number is 12 so you could leave as many as 3 out.

No you don't. The deal is a simple one. They get a P4 home in a new P4 conference if they go along. Otherwise there is no P4 home after the GOR. I think they call that an offer you can't refuse. But it works and is sometimes necessary.

But what's the mechanism to ensure this new league is "Power" in every sense of the word? And that it remains that way?

They could strike a deal for autonomy, I could see that. I think the question is the money...

Does ESPN or another network pay them competitive rates with the others? If so, then is anything really gained from the network's perspective by moving these schools around? The implication is that the SEC and B1G would be better off by swallowing up a few ACC schools, but not all of them. The reason being that the others just aren't as valuable. If they're not as valuable then paying them a competitive rate seems a steep price for shuffling pieces on the board.

From the schools' perspective, if they're valuable enough to get a competitive rate in a leftover league then what's the rush? Come 2035, the same value proposition should exist. But if the same value proposition doesn't exist in 15 years then they might as well wait out their current deal if they're going to be relegated in some fashion.

I think the only motivation one of these current ACC schools would have is if the real market value is so low come 2035 that they would end up with AAC level payments. If that were the case then accepting halfway decent, but not remotely competitive money in the near term might be the better play.

But that's the thing...if you're Miami or Louisville or Georgia Tech or a couple of others then your value shouldn't be super low come 2035.

Perhaps the networks could lock schools like that into what they're making now so that the SEC and B1G get bumps, but there's still a clear ceiling for profit on shifting schools around. But then comes the other side of the problem for the networks, you have several G5 schools that aren't hardly making anything right now. If you promote them and lock them into something comparable to what the ACC is taking in then that's a huge investment.

If indeed we have a day coming when a large number of schools close and a large number of marginal athletic programs get dropped then I think you'll also see a boost of popularity among the lower tier of the Power schools. They should benefit to some degree from having greater access to athletes and funds associated with growing enrollments. If that's the case then relegation takes on less importance.

I think it would be more economical to go to a P3. Take a few extra ACC schools in the near term and consolidate down to 3 leagues of roughly equal size. You've got advantages with regard to how to construct the CFP as well as branding in the marketplace.

(05-28-2018 10:44 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-28-2018 09:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-28-2018 09:30 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-28-2018 07:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-28-2018 04:39 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  My question would be...

From ESPN's perspective, once you've dismantled the ACC then what do you do with the ACC Network? That's an interesting entity to drag and drop.

It could be folded into the SECN, or used to become a new network for something that might include the P5 left behinds and the best of the AAC.

Let's say that the SEC only takes 4 of the ACC schools and the Big 10 only takes 4. While the PAC take 6 from the Big 12. Now you have 11 schools outside of that P3. Add the best 7 of the AAC and you have a 4th P4, but one that does not require the Big 10, SEC, or PAC to stray from their standards, and in the case of the PAC one that doesn't stray too far from their standards.

SEC:

Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, N.C. State

Alabama, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M

B1G:

Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Penn State, Virginia

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers

Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

PAC:

Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Utah

California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State

New P4:

Central Florida, East Carolina, Georgia Tech, Memphis, South Florida, Wake Forest

Boston College, Connecticut, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Baylor, Cincinnati, Houston, Kansas State, Louisville, T.C.U.


Now that ACCN could be converted to this conference's network totally owned by ESPN.

ESPN would maintain the majority control of the SEC & SECN and by virtu of what was offered to the Big 10 have better than 50% control of their T1 & T2.

FOX and ESPN split the PAC rights as they do now. If ESPN gains control of that network it would be by converting the LHN.

If I'm an ACC school that's not among that 8 though, I don't go for that deal. I'd ride out the GOR and see what happens in the 2030s.

I'd probably be no worse off once the GOR ended, and I'd get some decent ACC money in the interim. Not to mention, there's the off chance I could use that 15 year period to transform myself into something more attractive when judgement day finally comes.

I think you'd have to take a number large enough to disband the league and end the GOR. I'm assuming that number is 12 so you could leave as many as 3 out.

No you don't. The deal is a simple one. They get a P4 home in a new P4 conference if they go along. Otherwise there is no P4 home after the GOR. I think they call that an offer you can't refuse. But it works and is sometimes necessary.

But what's the mechanism to ensure this new league is "Power" in every sense of the word? And that it remains that way?

They could strike a deal for autonomy, I could see that. I think the question is the money...

Does ESPN or another network pay them competitive rates with the others? If so, then is anything really gained from the network's perspective by moving these schools around? The implication is that the SEC and B1G would be better off by swallowing up a few ACC schools, but not all of them. The reason being that the others just aren't as valuable. If they're not as valuable then paying them a competitive rate seems a steep price for shuffling pieces on the board.

From the schools' perspective, if they're valuable enough to get a competitive rate in a leftover league then what's the rush? Come 2035, the same value proposition should exist. But if the same value proposition doesn't exist in 15 years then they might as well wait out their current deal if they're going to be relegated in some fashion.

I think the only motivation one of these current ACC schools would have is if the real market value is so low come 2035 that they would end up with AAC level payments. If that were the case then accepting halfway decent, but not remotely competitive money in the near term might be the better play.

But that's the thing...if you're Miami or Louisville or Georgia Tech or a couple of others then your value shouldn't be super low come 2035.

Perhaps the networks could lock schools like that into what they're making now so that the SEC and B1G get bumps, but there's still a clear ceiling for profit on shifting schools around. But then comes the other side of the problem for the networks, you have several G5 schools that aren't hardly making anything right now. If you promote them and lock them into something comparable to what the ACC is taking in then that's a huge investment.

If indeed we have a day coming when a large number of schools close and a large number of marginal athletic programs get dropped then I think you'll also see a boost of popularity among the lower tier of the Power schools. They should benefit to some degree from having greater access to athletes and funds associated with growing enrollments. If that's the case then relegation takes on less importance.

I think it would be more economical to go to a P3. Take a few extra ACC schools in the near term and consolidate down to 3 leagues of roughly equal size. You've got advantages with regard to how to construct the CFP as well as branding in the marketplace.

Why are the P5 the P5 now? Because the networks said so and made bowl pairings that favored them and when the CFP came along made sure that those were basically the conferences considered. It would be no different if a new conference was built to include those current P5 schools left out of the final alignment, and the top G5 schools of merit who fit the demographics of the new conference. Pay would be a part of that but like the ACC now they don't have to make the same, just more than the AAC which they would be tearing apart anyway. So if the network got them bowl tie ins and consideration for the CFP, particularly in a champs only model. Then they are a power conference.

Soobahk is correct in noting that conference expansion have not been cataclysmic events and there is more of a gradual dimension to it. Even the WAC and BE transformations were void of a sensational climax. This was due, in part, to anticipation and timing of departures.

I am doubtful these P5 schools will get together and figure out, collectively, how to eleminate and/or re-assign one of their own. If they do, it defies the norm on expansion. I can't believe ESPN is going to be the grand mediator that will have everyone on the same page. Now as an enticer, for certain schools, and single conferences, that makes sense.

In 5 to 7 years, the next round, among the elite, will start with one, probably two, schools, accepting an offer to one P5 conference. That will trigger, one to three other P5 conferences, to extend one to maximum four offers each; most of it being the result of prior courting and anticipation. Whatever the B12 loses, they backload from the G-5 possibilities. Maybe they'll rename themselves; and certainly the ripple effect impacts all G-5 conferences.
I am doubtful about consolidations on the P5 level. These schools are naturally guarded in their decision-making and not prone to radical change. Interests can conflict, and even fans are suspicious of anything that appears risky or unsettling for their favored schools.
The PAC12 is making comparatively less, but are not vulnerable. They could land up to four B12 schools, but it may not be the four they most desire. I don't see both UT and OU cooperating on the same PAC12 move, if extended again.

(05-29-2018 09:21 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Soobahk is correct in noting that conference expansion have not been cataclysmic events and there is more of a gradual dimension to it. Even the WAC and BE transformations were void of a sensational climax. This was due, in part, to anticipation and timing of departures.

I am doubtful these P5 schools will get together and figure out, collectively, how to eleminate and/or re-assign one of their own. If they do, it defies the norm on expansion. I can't believe ESPN is going to be the grand mediator that will have everyone on the same page. Now as an enticer, for certain schools, and single conferences, that makes sense.

In 5 to 7 years, the next round, among the elite, will start with one, probably two, schools, accepting an offer to one P5 conference. That will trigger, one to three other P5 conferences, to extend one to maximum four offers each; most of it being the result of prior courting and anticipation. Whatever the B12 loses, they backload from the G-5 possibilities. Maybe they'll rename themselves; and certainly the ripple effect impacts all G-5 conferences.
I am doubtful about consolidations on the P5 level. These schools are naturally guarded in their decision-making and not prone to radical change. Interests can conflict, and even fans are suspicious of anything that appears risky or unsettling for their favored schools.
The PAC12 is making comparatively less, but are not vulnerable. They could land up to four B12 schools, but it may not be the four they most desire. I don't see both UT and OU cooperating on the same PAC12 move, if extended again.

Thanks for the encouraging words. I do disagree with you, however about the vulnerability of the PAC 12. Money is a strong incentive. I agree that UT/OU wouldn't cooperate on the same PAC 12 move if extended again, but I think that the key question is present in that statement: Can Texas/OK cooperate?

If they can, then I would think they stick around in the Big 12. If Texas/OK stick around in the Big 12 and the money difference continues, then at least Arizona/State could be pried away if the rumors are true at all. If that happens, then WVU really is an island in a western conference.

On the other hand, if Texas/OK do not cooperate, then Texahoma to the SEC or OK/State to the SEC and Texas/Tech + possibily others to the ACC make a little more sense. At that point, the PAC has options: KU/KSU, TCU/Baylor (?), and Iowa State (assuming WVU is too far away). Or if the Big 10 swoops in for KU, the PAC could still snatch Houston, etc.

So once again we are left with: What do OK/Texas think of the current Big 12?

A follow up question would be: Where do OK/Texas recruit? If it is to the west, then they can ignore Cincy/Memphis/USF/UCF type schools, but move on Arizona/State and BYU/CSU type schools.

That would add Salt Lake City, and Phoenix at least, and maybe grab some of the Denver market too even if CSU is not a huge draw there. That would be a massive population addition to the current Big 12. If they wanted to, they could still consider SDSU and UNLV, but those might be second tier.

If it is to the East, getting back to Houston may still be attractive, but adding USF (Tampa), UCF (Orlando), Cincy, and and Memphis would be adding 4 top 50 metros.

(05-29-2018 09:21 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Soobahk is correct in noting that conference expansion have not been cataclysmic events and there is more of a gradual dimension to it. Even the WAC and BE transformations were void of a sensational climax. This was due, in part, to anticipation and timing of departures.

I am doubtful these P5 schools will get together and figure out, collectively, how to eleminate and/or re-assign one of their own. If they do, it defies the norm on expansion. I can't believe ESPN is going to be the grand mediator that will have everyone on the same page. Now as an enticer, for certain schools, and single conferences, that makes sense.

In 5 to 7 years, the next round, among the elite, will start with one, probably two, schools, accepting an offer to one P5 conference. That will trigger, one to three other P5 conferences, to extend one to maximum four offers each; most of it being the result of prior courting and anticipation. Whatever the B12 loses, they backload from the G-5 possibilities. Maybe they'll rename themselves; and certainly the ripple effect impacts all G-5 conferences.
I am doubtful about consolidations on the P5 level. These schools are naturally guarded in their decision-making and not prone to radical change. Interests can conflict, and even fans are suspicious of anything that appears risky or unsettling for their favored schools.
The PAC12 is making comparatively less, but are not vulnerable. They could land up to four B12 schools, but it may not be the four they most desire. I don't see both UT and OU cooperating on the same PAC12 move, if extended again.

Institutionally I don't see the PAC as being vulnerable either. But, while California is the 5th largest global economy passing the UK, they are also living atop yet another debt souffle'. If anything ever happens in the PAC it will be because that souffle' falls. Until then they are a gestalt.

What I don't see as a gestalt is the ACC. There simply aren't enough programs in the Big 12 to satisfy the desires of the SEC and Big 10. The markets that make the most sense for the Big 10 are to the East, not down the Chisholm Trail. The markets that the SEC craves the most are to the East with the lone exception of DFW.

Heretofore in the realignment game the SEC and Big 10, whether by plan or accident, have avoided going head to head on expansion targets.

Texas and Oklahoma are two giant anchors around which a much more viable conference can be built. Notre Dame as a partial and F.S.U. as a giant with little voice in the ACC are not two pillars with which to hold up the ACC house. In fact the only thing holding up the ACC house is their GOR.

So the most likely thing to happen around 2023-4 will be the signing of a 10 year extension on the Big 12 GOR. Why? Because Texas and Oklahoma will both likely see their long term self interest to be best advantaged by waiting for time, pressure, and monetary disparity to do their work on the ACC. What's more they may not even have to wait that long. The ACCN's first full distribution will likely be in 2022. If the money then doesn't look like it is going to help them significantly close the revenue gap, with Skipper gone at ESPN, with the pressure on subscription models mounting, it may be more profitable for the ACC schools, and ESPN, and the Big 10, SEC, and Big 12, to parse those properties. No elaborate negotiations needed at all.

Duke, North Carolina, Virginia and possibly Notre Dame accept the Big 10. Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson and Florida State accept the SEC. The Big 12 cherry picks schools it can access. Georgia Tech and Miami put them in high recruiting areas and are both transportation hubs. Maybe they look at Pitt, Syracuse, B.C. and Louisville to go with West Virginia.

But the point is that it takes 12 ACC schools to dissolve the conference. If the decision to leave comes from the unthinkable, the old core, there are enough schools on the periphery that could find other homes that it could happen. And it could happen easily if the Big 12 took Pitt, Syracuse, B.C., Louisville and either Cincinnati or Connecticut to help them move to 18 as well.

Why 18? Basically for 1 reason. The Big 10 wants North Carolina and Virginia. North Carolina won't leave without Duke and preferably Virginia in tow. If this move should happen Notre Dame has nowhere else to go. Those 4 do more to complete the Big 10 efficiently than any others. They are more compact as a footprint than extending South into Oklahoma and Texas and they fit more culturally.

If the Big 10 goes to 18 the SEC will match their expansion into Virginia and North Carolina by taking Tech and State. The SEC will then get defensive in Florida by taking F.S.U. (which UF will insist upon) and Clemson is just too much like an SEC school to pass on during a content driven pay era.

So if the Big 12 with a network of their own wants markets then adding on in the Old Big East to build a division for West Virginia provides a nice market for them. Picking up a Florida connection and the Atlanta market is just a nice way to finish it out. The only question then is who else to get to 18? Colorado State, Connecticut, Wake Forest, Brigham Young, Memphis?

(05-29-2018 01:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-29-2018 09:21 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Soobahk is correct in noting that conference expansion have not been cataclysmic events and there is more of a gradual dimension to it. Even the WAC and BE transformations were void of a sensational climax. This was due, in part, to anticipation and timing of departures.

I am doubtful these P5 schools will get together and figure out, collectively, how to eleminate and/or re-assign one of their own. If they do, it defies the norm on expansion. I can't believe ESPN is going to be the grand mediator that will have everyone on the same page. Now as an enticer, for certain schools, and single conferences, that makes sense.

In 5 to 7 years, the next round, among the elite, will start with one, probably two, schools, accepting an offer to one P5 conference. That will trigger, one to three other P5 conferences, to extend one to maximum four offers each; most of it being the result of prior courting and anticipation. Whatever the B12 loses, they backload from the G-5 possibilities. Maybe they'll rename themselves; and certainly the ripple effect impacts all G-5 conferences.
I am doubtful about consolidations on the P5 level. These schools are naturally guarded in their decision-making and not prone to radical change. Interests can conflict, and even fans are suspicious of anything that appears risky or unsettling for their favored schools.
The PAC12 is making comparatively less, but are not vulnerable. They could land up to four B12 schools, but it may not be the four they most desire. I don't see both UT and OU cooperating on the same PAC12 move, if extended again.

Institutionally I don't see the PAC as being vulnerable either. But, while California is the 5th largest global economy passing the UK, they are also living atop yet another debt souffle'. If anything ever happens in the PAC it will be because that souffle' falls. Until then they are a gestalt.

What I don't see as a gestalt is the ACC. There simply aren't enough programs in the Big 12 to satisfy the desires of the SEC and Big 10. The markets that make the most sense for the Big 10 are to the East, not down the Chisholm Trail. The markets that the SEC craves the most are to the East with the lone exception of DFW.

Heretofore in the realignment game the SEC and Big 10, whether by plan or accident, have avoided going head to head on expansion targets.

Texas and Oklahoma are two giant anchors around which a much more viable conference can be built. Notre Dame as a partial and F.S.U. as a giant with little voice in the ACC are not two pillars with which to hold up the ACC house. In fact the only thing holding up the ACC house is their GOR.

So the most likely thing to happen around 2023-4 will be the signing of a 10 year extension on the Big 12 GOR. Why? Because Texas and Oklahoma will both likely see their long term self interest to be best advantaged by waiting for time, pressure, and monetary disparity to do their work on the ACC. What's more they may not even have to wait that long. The ACCN's first full distribution will likely be in 2022. If the money then doesn't look like it is going to help them significantly close the revenue gap, with Skipper gone at ESPN, with the pressure on subscription models mounting, it may be more profitable for the ACC schools, and ESPN, and the Big 10, SEC, and Big 12, to parse those properties. No elaborate negotiations needed at all.

Duke, North Carolina, Virginia and possibly Notre Dame accept the Big 10. Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson and Florida State accept the SEC. The Big 12 cherry picks schools it can access. Georgia Tech and Miami put them in high recruiting areas and are both transportation hubs. Maybe they look at Pitt, Syracuse, B.C. and Louisville to go with West Virginia.

But the point is that it takes 12 ACC schools to dissolve the conference. If the decision to leave comes from the unthinkable, the old core, there are enough schools on the periphery that could find other homes that it could happen. And it could happen easily if the Big 12 took Pitt, Syracuse, B.C., Louisville and either Cincinnati or Connecticut to help them move to 18 as well.

Why 18? Basically for 1 reason. The Big 10 wants North Carolina and Virginia. North Carolina won't leave without Duke and preferably Virginia in tow. If this move should happen Notre Dame has nowhere else to go. Those 4 do more to complete the Big 10 efficiently than any others. They are more compact as a footprint than extending South into Oklahoma and Texas and they fit more culturally.

If the Big 10 goes to 18 the SEC will match their expansion into Virginia and North Carolina by taking Tech and State. The SEC will then get defensive in Florida by taking F.S.U. (which UF will insist upon) and Clemson is just too much like an SEC school to pass on during a content driven pay era.

So if the Big 12 with a network of their own wants markets then adding on in the Old Big East to build a division for West Virginia provides a nice market for them. Picking up a Florida connection and the Atlanta market is just a nice way to finish it out. The only question then is who else to get to 18? Colorado State, Connecticut, Wake Forest, Brigham Young, Memphis?

If Oklahoma and Texas hold the rope then it could all work out for the Big 12.

Might I suggest this:

Notre Dame, recalcitrant in the face of a Big Ten invite, decides to lead a group into the Big 12.

Pittsburgh, Louisville, Georgia Tech, and Miami move with them. Throw in Cincinnati and the Big 12 is at 16 and getting an awful lot of bang for the buck. ESPN probably owns the conference network(some amalgamation of the LHN and ACCN) and ND has a lot of flexibility to play a more national schedule in their non-conference as the league can function well with 8 league games. That's 4 to play USC, Stanford, Navy, and either a Big Ten or SEC school in a given season. Within the conference, ND maintains a regular presence in the Northeast and South. That and they get regular tilts with Oklahoma and Texas.

The SEC is the biggest winner with Florida State, Clemson, NC State, and Virginia Tech.

The Big Ten gets what they really need though with North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and Syracuse.

At that point, only Boston College and Wake Forest are left out. They could move to the American and perhaps schools like BYU and Boise State would join them to form some sort of transcontinental "best of the rest" conference.