Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Summertime Exercise: Reality Check for Realignment and You are the Commissioner
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,908
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1
Summertime Exercise: Reality Check for Realignment and You are the Commissioner
I'm going to ask each of you to take a multiple personality pill and become the commissioners of the SEC, Big 10, PAC, and ACC.

Using the attendance, Gross Total Revenue, TV Revenue, WSJ Football and Basketball Valuation numbers pinned at the top of this page come up with a prospects list in order for each conference.

Do not pick who you want in that conference. Pick who you think, based on the numbers and what you know of that particular conference's membership criteria, who it is you would propose to the presidents that comprise that conference.

List the school's name and why you think they would qualify for membership into that conference.

Then do the same for all of the Non Big 12 P conferences.

When you have completed those 4 lists of candidates (and yes there should be duplicates on the various lists) then look at the prospect of the schools in the Big 12 and answer the question "Would leaving be profitable and would it be so for "all" of our sports?"

I think you will find the experience enlightening and we will vote on the best responses for + Reputation and all who participate will at least get a +1.
(This post was last modified: 06-18-2018 05:33 PM by JRsec.)
06-18-2018 05:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #2
RE: Summertime Exercise: Reality Check for Realignment and You are the Commissioner
(06-18-2018 05:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I'm going to ask each of you to take a multiple personality pill and become the commissioners of the SEC, Big 10, PAC, and ACC.

Using the attendance, Gross Total Revenue, TV Revenue, WSJ Football and Basketball Valuation numbers pinned at the top of this page come up with a prospects list in order for each conference.

Do not pick who you want in that conference. Pick who you think, based on the numbers and what you know of that particular conference's membership criteria, who it is you would propose to the presidents that comprise that conference.

List the school's name and why you think they would qualify for membership into that conference.

Then do the same for all of the Non Big 12 P conferences.

When you have completed those 4 lists of candidates (and yes there should be duplicates on the various lists) then look at the prospect of the schools in the Big 12 and answer the question "Would leaving be profitable and would it be so for "all" of our sports?"

I think you will find the experience enlightening and we will vote on the best responses for + Reputation and all who participate will at least get a +1.

SEC:

Hello, my name is Greg Sankey and I've come to recommend your strategy for conquering the world.

There are only 2 schools that are above our revenue average...Texas and Oklahoma. With that said, I don't think we should use that average as a hard and fast threshold. It wasn't used as the standard last time when we took Missouri so I think we should approach this thing delicately.

We have to consider that most of the value that any addition brings would be in TV revenue. The TV revenue average is a much smaller figure than our average overall revenue. It's also a little harder to calculate because the average is based on the strength of the whole rather than simply a sum of the parts.

So I think we should prioritize 3 things...TV ratings, new markets and/or unique viewers that their inclusion adds to our pot, and consistency of performance.

1. TV ratings will ultimately determine what we get paid because these companies have to make money too and they need people watching their network.

2. New markets and/or unique viewers within currently accessed markets are important. This is a sneaky way to grow TV ratings by getting more people to be interested in your product.

3. Consistency of performance shouldn't be underestimated though. People want to watch quality products and so we need to pick programs that have show both a commitment and an ability to perform well over long periods of time.

I feel comfortable recommending:

Texas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
West Virginia

I think the addition of Oklahoma State will be necessary given the political situation in the state of OK. Texas is too valuable not to pursue so I've selected a suitable 4th addition in WVU. I feel each of these additions once scheduled against the current members of the SEC will add more value to the average TV revenue.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Big Ten:

Hello, my name is Jim Delany and I don't have a lot to work with here.

My criteria isn't all that different from the SEC's, but we need schools that give us access to markets with affluent alumni even if the alumni don't necessarily live near the school. In the recent past, I have banked a lot on rich and populous cable markets. That seems to be falling out of style though so my biggest problem is that most of what I would find palatable isn't terribly close by. There are some decent additions to be had, but the snobs in my league will absolutely slaughter me if I don't recommend schools with large research budgets and endowments. I have no shot at getting into the ACC right now so I'm left to dig through the Big 12 and see what I can find.

Oklahoma and Texas would fill pretty much every point of our criteria even though OU's academics aren't really on par with the rest of our league. I wouldn't mind taking Iowa State, but we already possess the top brand in that state and unfortunately the Cyclones don't offer us much return for our investment. Kansas is palatable, but has quality control issues.

Pretty sure I can get Oklahoma, but not so sure about Texas.

But I tell you what, I'm darn tempted to roll the dice on Colorado. They have tons of alumni in CA and Denver is a pretty strong and growing market in itself. If I can wrestle CU away with the promise of huge money then I have a very solid #2 if Texas says no. If Texas says yes then I still like Colorado, but the problem would be finding a decent 4th school. So that's my plan...stick with 16 by starting with Oklahoma. Texas is my first choice then take Colorado if UT declines.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PAC 12:

Hello, my name is Larry Scott and I don't want to play this game anymore.

I would love to recommend Texas and Oklahoma, but I don't think I can get them at this point without taking a whole bunch of schools that my Presidents aren't interested in. The fact that they can make so much more money elsewhere is not helping me sleep at night.

I was having a sourdough sandwich downtown the other day and I started thinking about Hawaii. I'm not talking about the school...I'm talking about just picking up shop and moving to Hawaii. I mean, forget this crap. I can't do that though.

In some of my more reflective moments, I think Kansas and Iowa State would be good additions, but most of my members don't want to travel that far.

I could always call UNLV. I know they would still answer and playing some games in that sweet new stadium would be nice. They'd take me up on my offer, but that also kind of makes me not want them. You want most what you can't have in life.

Hindsight is 20/20 my friend. If I had just pushed the issue on Baylor then maybe I'd be sitting pretty right now.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ACC:

Hello, my name is John Swofford and I've made some mistakes in life, but I'm just focusing on being a better person right now.

My criteria for expansion is a bit limited because most of the good options are not close by. If this new network thing works out then maybe I'll be able to convince someone new to come around.

Some people say I should go after West Virginia, but I'm just not feeling it. Sure, I'd like to have a 16th school, but I don't really need one until Notre Dame makes a real commitment. Until that day comes, I think I run a better chance of diluting our payments rather than adding to the bottom line. Even then, I'm not sure WVU is the one. We pretty much have schools all over that area anyway and a lot of our schools don't care for the Mountaineers. I'm not sure it would last.

And after the whole Louisville thing, I don't want to take any more chances on an unproven commodity.
06-18-2018 10:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Soobahk40050 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,555
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 103
I Root For: Tennessee
Location:
Post: #3
RE: Summertime Exercise: Reality Check for Realignment and You are the Commissioner
SEC Commissioner Report:

My esteemed colleagues:
Based on the criteria you asked me to consider, I submit two schools to you that the SEC should actively pursue. Other schools may help attract these schools politically, but these are the four that we should seek out.

As you probably know, in every category you asked me to consider, Texas exceeds our conference average. In all but one category, that of basketball valuation, Oklahoma does as well.

If we could snatch these two and stop, we would have a very solid 16. Texas A&M, would you be okay with Texas joining us if it meant more money? You would, okay.

If we wanted to go to 18, other schools like Kansas or even Nebraska might be worth pursuing, but these only meet some of our criteria and fall short in others, as does Clemson.

Let me also mention: I know some of you have wondered about WVU. I do not want to disparage them at all but they fall well short in attendance, would have the lowest valued basketball team in the league, have a football valuation 60 million below the mid-range current SEC team, and 30 million less than our average revenue.

Big 10 Commissioner Report:

My esteemed colleagues: I will keep this brief.

You probably knew Texas and Oklahoma met our criteria in everything but basketball (and Oklahoma’s AAU is a sticking point I know).

You also may have figured out that FSU is worthy target, exceeding our averages in revenue and attendance.

It may however, surprise you to know that schools like Duke and UNC would really only help us in basketball. A better overall option, though I know you will not like this, is Louisville, who has great revenue numbers.

Yet there is one more school that we should consider: Washington. They bring in a great deal of revenue, have strong attendance numbers, have a highly valuable football team.

ACC Report:

My esteemed colleagues: Let us look west.

Texas meets all our criteria, and Oklahoma only falls short in basketball. But, my friends, so does UCLA. Washington meets 3 of the four (basketball and football valuations, revenue, attendance). So does Oregon, Arizona St., USC and Kansas.

Several more schools meet two of our criteria: Iowa State, OK State, Texas Tech, KSU, Notre Dame, and Stanford. WVU only meets one as it comes just under our revenue average.
My friends, let us imagine a national conference. Imagine Duke, UNC, UCLA and Kansas all together under our one league umbrella.

Imagine USC versus FSU, imagine Texas versus Clemson. We must be bold, let us pursue the west! We'd have to figure out a plan for the Olympic sports, but it will be worth it.

PAC-12 report:

My friends,

We are in a tough position. We cannot steal from the SEC or the Big 10, and perhaps even the ACC. But the Big 12 is ripe for the picking. And yes, Texas and Oklahoma are the jewels, but several others will help us. Oklahoma State also meets all our criteria.

Kansas St. meets three of the four.

Kansas and Iowa St. meet two of the four, as does WVU.

My suggestion is this: chase Oklahoma and Texas, and let them decide who they want to tag along. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, Texas and Kansas is not a bad move for us. If Texas desires another Texas team, both Tech and TCU would be okay, meeting at least one of our criteria, yes even Baylor.

Big 12 team reports:

Texas: We are better than any conference, but if we must choose one, our basketball could be helped by the Big 10.

OK: We are probably better than any conference, but if we must choose, we should avoid the PAC.

OK State: We should aim for the SEC or Big 10.

Texas Tech: We should aim for the SEC or Big 10, but the PAC wouldn’t be too bad, and the ACC would be okay.

TCU: We’d love to get into the SEC or Big 10, but really anyone who takes us we will be happy with.

Baylor: We’d love to get into the SEC or Big 10, but really anyone who takes us we will be happy with.

Kansas: Our basketball is better than any conference, but if we have to move, we should go SEC/Big 10, and avoid the ACC.

KSU: We want the SEC/Big 10, and the PAC might hurt us in some areas.

Iowa St.: We want the SEC/Big 10, and the PAC/ACC might hurt us in some areas.

WVU: We want the SEC/Big 10, but we’ll go wherever people want us.

(The “Little 8”: If Texas and Oklahoma stay or we can’t get into the SEC/Big 10, we should stick around in the Big 12).

***
TL,DR:
SEC: Texas and Oklahoma; Clemson and Kansas are runners-up
Big 10: Texas and Oklahoma; FSU, Louisville, Washington
ACC: Texas and Oklahoma, UCLA, Washington, Oregon, Arizona St, USC
PAC 10: Texas and Oklahoma, Ok State, KSU and Kansas/Iowa St

Big 12: Texas really should go independent. Oklahoma probably should. But for most of the Big 12 its Big 10 or SEC or bust, i.e, it may be better to try and salvage the conference.
(This post was last modified: 06-19-2018 09:59 AM by Soobahk40050.)
06-19-2018 09:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Win5002 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 618
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 31
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #4
RE: Summertime Exercise: Reality Check for Realignment and You are the Commissioner
(06-19-2018 09:56 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  SEC Commissioner Report:

My esteemed colleagues:
Based on the criteria you asked me to consider, I submit two schools to you that the SEC should actively pursue. Other schools may help attract these schools politically, but these are the four that we should seek out.

As you probably know, in every category you asked me to consider, Texas exceeds our conference average. In all but one category, that of basketball valuation, Oklahoma does as well.

If we could snatch these two and stop, we would have a very solid 16. Texas A&M, would you be okay with Texas joining us if it meant more money? You would, okay.

If we wanted to go to 18, other schools like Kansas or even Nebraska might be worth pursuing, but these only meet some of our criteria and fall short in others, as does Clemson.

Let me also mention: I know some of you have wondered about WVU. I do not want to disparage them at all but they fall well short in attendance, would have the lowest valued basketball team in the league, have a football valuation 60 million below the mid-range current SEC team, and 30 million less than our average revenue.

Big 10 Commissioner Report:

My esteemed colleagues: I will keep this brief.

You probably knew Texas and Oklahoma met our criteria in everything but basketball (and Oklahoma’s AAU is a sticking point I know).

You also may have figured out that FSU is worthy target, exceeding our averages in revenue and attendance.

It may however, surprise you to know that schools like Duke and UNC would really only help us in basketball. A better overall option, though I know you will not like this, is Louisville, who has great revenue numbers.

Yet there is one more school that we should consider: Washington. They bring in a great deal of revenue, have strong attendance numbers, have a highly valuable football team.

ACC Report:

My esteemed colleagues: Let us look west.

Texas meets all our criteria, and Oklahoma only falls short in basketball. But, my friends, so does UCLA. Washington meets 3 of the four (basketball and football valuations, revenue, attendance). So does Oregon, Arizona St., USC and Kansas.

Several more schools meet two of our criteria: Iowa State, OK State, Texas Tech, KSU, Notre Dame, and Stanford. WVU only meets one as it comes just under our revenue average.
My friends, let us imagine a national conference. Imagine Duke, UNC, UCLA and Kansas all together under our one league umbrella.

Imagine USC versus FSU, imagine Texas versus Clemson. We must be bold, let us pursue the west! We'd have to figure out a plan for the Olympic sports, but it will be worth it.

PAC-12 report:

My friends,

We are in a tough position. We cannot steal from the SEC or the Big 10, and perhaps even the ACC. But the Big 12 is ripe for the picking. And yes, Texas and Oklahoma are the jewels, but several others will help us. Oklahoma State also meets all our criteria.

Kansas St. meets three of the four.

Kansas and Iowa St. meet two of the four, as does WVU.

My suggestion is this: chase Oklahoma and Texas, and let them decide who they want to tag along. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, Texas and Kansas is not a bad move for us. If Texas desires another Texas team, both Tech and TCU would be okay, meeting at least one of our criteria, yes even Baylor.

Big 12 team reports:

Texas: We are better than any conference, but if we must choose one, our basketball could be helped by the Big 10.

OK: We are probably better than any conference, but if we must choose, we should avoid the PAC.

OK State: We should aim for the SEC or Big 10.

Texas Tech: We should aim for the SEC or Big 10, but the PAC wouldn’t be too bad, and the ACC would be okay.

TCU: We’d love to get into the SEC or Big 10, but really anyone who takes us we will be happy with.

Baylor: We’d love to get into the SEC or Big 10, but really anyone who takes us we will be happy with.

Kansas: Our basketball is better than any conference, but if we have to move, we should go SEC/Big 10, and avoid the ACC.

KSU: We want the SEC/Big 10, and the PAC might hurt us in some areas.

Iowa St.: We want the SEC/Big 10, and the PAC/ACC might hurt us in some areas.

WVU: We want the SEC/Big 10, but we’ll go wherever people want us.

(The “Little 8”: If Texas and Oklahoma stay or we can’t get into the SEC/Big 10, we should stick around in the Big 12).

***
TL,DR:
SEC: Texas and Oklahoma; Clemson and Kansas are runners-up
Big 10: Texas and Oklahoma; FSU, Louisville, Washington
ACC: Texas and Oklahoma, UCLA, Washington, Oregon, Arizona St, USC
PAC 10: Texas and Oklahoma, Ok State, KSU and Kansas/Iowa St

Big 12: Texas really should go independent. Oklahoma probably should. But for most of the Big 12 its Big 10 or SEC or bust, i.e, it may be better to try and salvage the conference.

SEC- I want Texas & OU. If Texas comes OU is silly not to come. Our conference would have the 3 biggest regional rivals Texas had through their history A&M, OU & Arkansas. From a scheduling standpoint with only 8 conference games and 4 non-conference to keep rotating with 2 more Texas schools of Rice, TT, Baylor, TCU, Houston the scheduling from the SEC couldn't be much better, so why wouldn't we be their favorite? I think it comes down to the academic perception and the win at all cost in the league.

Last time we added 2 AAU schools and enhanced the academic profile. Lets add two more this time and again make sure those two are AAU and lets also tie Missouri and one of the newcomers OU better into the conference by adding schools with a history. So in addition lets add Kansas and Iowa State. We get a blue blood basketball school in Kansas and another very solid bball program in ISU with one of the best venues that is a little bit of a secret to those outside the Big 12.

B1G-
1. OU & Texas. This addition of OU would help tie in Nebraska to the conference and hopefully give them a chance to restore their program back to performing at close to a blueblood status they once were. We also need the recruiting grounds of Texas, since this conference doesn't have the built in hotbeds of recruits other power conferences have.

The Problem? Texas isn't coming without more regional partners and in the end I don't think OU comes if they think Texas could slide to the SEC without them. The homerun addition is Texas A&M along with those two is Texas A&M, while I don't think it happens we make the call and make them turn us down. If we did hit the jackpot on A&M it would make it much easier for the league presidents to swallow only having to take one of TT, Houston or TCU.

Assuming that happens we relent and add two more Texas teams to give Texas the regional partners they need and yes we realize Rice doesn't work. So Texas we relent and you can bring Texas Tech and Houston(if you can get OU to sign off on UH). With these 3 teams it gives our league access to the state of Texas in recruiting as well which we need.

2. If we can't get Texas with their recruiting grounds the next place to consider is adding 4-6 PAC 12 schools. We want to cover both northern and southern California so we want at least one school in the south and one in the north, but we can do all 4 California schools. We are only doing this for the sports of football and basketball. If we go to 6 we have a few options if we are going to 20:
-add Washington & Oregon
-add OU & Washington. Earlier we were concerned about going to the B1G without Texas but if Texas has given OU the information they are not headed to the SEC and with the PAC in shambles they play to take 3-5 schools to rebuild the B12 it could be a possibillity. Think of the marquee matchups we might be able to construct with USC, UCLA, OU, Neb., OSU, PSU & Michigan as well as some really nice secondary brands in UW, Wisky, Ia. and MSU.
-The last option add Colorado & Washington(this gives Nebraska another regional partner)
***Someday if we get this addition of USC & Stanford we believe we can move Notre Dame into the fold with rivals of USC, Stanford, Mich., MSU & Purdue all in one conference.

PAC- The only real expansion that works is involving at least one of Texas & OU and more likely both. We would like only 4 schools but we have come to realize UT & OU are not coming west with such a small group that gives up their political power. If our league wants to expand we either have to take 6 B12 schools or disband and look at a 14-18 team newly established league. Right now the B1G offer is looking pretty good to the California schools.

ACC-We hope this network works and gives us the profits we are hoping for, if not we know our days are numbered because the B1G & SEC will carve us up like a nice juicy steak! If its as profitable as we hope there is only one school outside of ND that makes sense and thats Texas. We also know while we have solid academics we don't have the regional partners to make it work for Texas. We would prefer to have Texas as a full member, and if so they can pick the 3 teams for full membership or even 4 teams if they can get ND to join as well.


Big 12 & Bob Bowlsby- Since we have been left out of this exercise, we think your planned demise of our league is premature! We are solidly in 3rd place revenue wise and our top 2 programs that have the political power in the league are even more competitive from a tv standpoint. Our league also demonstrates solid 3rd place ratings tv wise.
(This post was last modified: 06-19-2018 02:12 PM by Win5002.)
06-19-2018 02:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Soobahk40050 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,555
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 103
I Root For: Tennessee
Location:
Post: #5
RE: Summertime Exercise: Reality Check for Realignment and You are the Commissioner
So a few thoughts based on this exercise:

1) everyone should want the SEC/Big 10 and settling for anything else doesn't make sense for the top schools.
2) the SEC/Big 10 need to be very picky about who they take. We've talked on here about moving to 16 and/or eventually to 18/20 (21/24), but the larger conferences might not make sense as at some point no school adds anything.
3) distance aside, I was surprised at how much the PAC schools made sense for the ACC. Could a true Nationwide conference actually work?
4) sticking around in the big 12 could be worthwhile for most of the schools in that conference. If Texas decides that, no expansion may still be the most likely outcome.
5) the PAC does benefit from KSU/OSU on their own if the Big 12 collapses and these schools are looking around.
(This post was last modified: 06-25-2018 04:22 PM by Soobahk40050.)
06-25-2018 04:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2024 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, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.