(03-04-2024 02:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 01:02 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  North Carolina could perhaps negotiate a place in a P2 league for NC State by offering to bring Duke along.

It would be interesting to see how the money works. The revenue boost of adding UNC+Duke could help justify an invitation for the Wolfpack, especially if schools are willing to make arrangements involving partial shares.

A P2 destination for three NC schools with both big public universities included: this could enable the crafting of a financial plan that would mollify the NC Board of Governors (per their newly enacted policy).

At 18? No.

At 20? No.

At 24? Yes. But likely only in the SEC. North Carolina, Duke, N.C. State, Virginia, and Virginia Tech will move to any better paying conference which would take all 5.

The Big 10 if it wants to make a reasonable and money saving move to divisions of 6 with a conference of 24 simply wouldn't have enough slots. The SEC would.

The SEC would still have a slot for a second Florida school and it wouldn't matter that much if it was FSU or Miami. They would still have room for a needed 6th Western school in Kansas. And could then decide between Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Louisville. With Duke, Kansas, North Carolina, and Virginia in hand the need for Louisville wouldn't be that great. Georgia Tech is a very nice academic addition, but not particularly strong in any sport and lagging in revenue production and with Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, and Georgia drawing from the Atlanta market adding Clemson would bring another football value multiplier and also pick up a bit of the Atlanta market. I think Clemson would be #8.

But 24 members is the size that must be attained for this to happen at all.

Divisions are dead. Conferences aren't even sticking to the same number of fixed rivals.

(03-04-2024 10:02 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 09:10 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 02:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 01:02 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  North Carolina could perhaps try to negotiate a place in a P2 league for NC State by offering to bring Duke along.

It would be interesting to see how the money works. The revenue boost of adding UNC+Duke could help justify an invitation for the Wolfpack, especially if schools are willing to make arrangements involving partial shares.

A P2 destination for three NC schools with both big public universities included: this could enable the crafting of a financial plan that would mollify the NC Board of Governors (per their newly enacted policy).

At 18? No.

At 20? No.

At 24? Yes. But likely only in the SEC. North Carolina, Duke, N.C. State, Virginia, and Virginia Tech will move to any better paying conference which would take all 5.

The Big 10 if it wants to make a reasonable and money saving move to divisions of 6 with a conference of 24 simply wouldn't have enough slots. The SEC would.

The SEC would still have a slot for a second Florida school and it wouldn't matter that much if it was FSU or Miami. They would still have room for a needed 6th Western school in Kansas. And could then decide between Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Louisville. With Duke, Kansas, North Carolina, and Virginia in hand the need for Louisville wouldn't be that great. Georgia Tech is a very nice academic addition, but not particularly strong in any sport and lagging in revenue production and with Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, and Georgia drawing from the Atlanta market adding Clemson would bring another football value multiplier and also pick up a bit of the Atlanta market. I think Clemson would be #8.

But 24 members is the size that must be attained for this to happen at all.

You have been including Kansas in your SEC expansionsion hypothticals for a few weeks consistently. Now you have also added Duke, which is in part more likely in that either Duke and Kansas both get invited or neither gets invited. Either basketball matters, or in their cases, big brand basketball matters, or it doesn't. It probably doesn't. If that is true, nothing else that makes them advantageous to the SEC matters either.

We all adjust details to fit the landscape, but JR has been steadfast for a long time about three things:
1. Kansas is a plus for the SEC
2. A second Florida school is desired by the SEC
3. We can expect big changes happening faster than many have expected
3a. This includes anything about the ACC that has the year '2036' printed on it

If you see a JR expansion scenario that doesn't mention Kansas to the SEC, call the FBI. Kidnappers are posting from his account.

JR has literally wriiten thousands of scenarios, some with Kansas, some without.

(03-04-2024 09:52 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 09:37 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 09:17 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’m a pretty big believer that conferences will only expand if they make more money per school for existing members.

At a certain point, math gets in the way.

The financial bar is *higher* for team #20 in the Big Ten and SEC than they were for team #16. Similarly, the bar is higher for team #24 than team #20.

There is no school in history that had more leverage to get whoever it wanted into a conference than Texas. We saw from the emails released in 2010 that they were insisting upon bringing Texas Tech to wherever it moved or else there would be no deal. The then-Pac-10 actually offered that and there were Big 12 schools that actually SIGNED documents to join that league, but Texas eventually backed out.

If Texas ultimately left the Big 12 with only Oklahoma (who is a valuable blue blood in its own right), then I just don’t see how UNC can force anyone to take NC State. I’m not saying that NC State doesn’t have value, but it’s simply not enough to add to the Big Ten or SEC and UNC itself isn’t so overwhelming valuable (in the way that Texas was) for a package deal to make sense.

The collapse of the Pac-12 really showed a LOT: it takes a Washington/Oregon-level brand to add money to the Big Ten (and by extension, the SEC), a combo of large market and elite academics isn’t good enough anymore (or else Stanford and Cal would be in the Big Ten), and there are a bunch of schools that are worth *something* (e.g. the Four Corners schools) but not necessarily enough to include in the Big Ten or SEC.

There are a lot of schools in the ACC that are like the Four Corners and Stanford/Cal, so there are a lot of schools with *some* value. However, I can count on one hand the number of ACC schools with Washington/Oregon-level value (and you’d probably have at least 1 or 2 fingers left over). I think many people vastly overrate the number of ACC schools that add money to the Big Ten/SEC, but paradoxically underrate how many schools have Four Corners-level value (where the ACC would survive even if it lost its 4 most valuable schools).

I think you are undervaluing how big of dogs Cal and Stanford are in football media revenue value It just doesn't matter how great their academics are if no one watches their games.

National, or at least large regional brands playing national brands that are rivals or are located where they could be rivals to large national brands, is what matters. No one outside of Cal or Stanford and the fans of the teams they play would watch them. Now compare them to say Virginia Tech and NCST. People would watch these schools play Tennessee, Georgia and the rest of the SEC. Tenn vs VT would be huge imo.

And I think people have it in their heads that this is just about academic elitism with respect to Stanford and Cal and are totally in “What happened last year must mean that it’s permanent” mode. Stanford was in the top 4 of football viewership for the Pac-12 consistently since 2010. They were a straight up better football program than either USC or Texas during the 2010s (much less Tennessee and Virginia Tech). When Stanford was playing well, LOTS of people watched. The viewership data shows it and it’s not ancient data, either.) Add in that Stanford and Cal are directly located in a large market that’s inordinately important for our economy (as the center of the tech industry) and produces a ton of top level athletes in virtually every sport for recruiting means that these schools do have everything that you could want in expansion candidates that aren’t just the handful of top football brand names… and that still wasn’t enough.

Believe me: I AM the “markets/academics” guy more than anyone else and I can recognize my 2010 framework is over. This is about pure, unambiguous massive football brands at this point for the Big Ten and SEC. My main issue is that many people strangely overstate how many schools are left outside of the Big Ten and SEC that are truly those types of brands. Like I’ve said, you can count the number of schools that fit that criteria on hand and still have fingers left over.

But what was Stanford viewership once they went back to sucking? Compare them to South Carolina. In Lou Holz's first year the Gamecocks went 1-10, but still finished the year in the top 10 in stadium attendance and people still watched their games on TV.

My point is not whether you should pick the Dallas Coyboys over the Jacksonville Jaguars, but what would be the value of a southern, therefore more rural, version of an AFL division?

(03-04-2024 09:48 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 09:40 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 09:32 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 09:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  This is true for the Big Ten, but I believe the SEC has a handful of pro-rata additions baked into their contract.

Pro-rata additions just make sure the existing schools don't lose money; they don't necessarily increase money for those same schools, though.

Right. At the same time, eventually each of those schools need to pay for themselves in the long-term. The Big Ten took Washington and Oregon because their studies showed that they would ultimately add value in the long-term (so the fact that they are being paid partial revenue shares initially is just a bonus for the Big Ten). Matt Brown and others have indicated this in their reporting. In contrast, the Big Ten didn’t take Stanford and Cal even though the league would have been temporarily fine financially with the deal that Stanford/Cal took with the ACC (with a *vastly* reduced share) because it was determined that those schools wouldn’t be able to pay for themselves as equal members in the future.

All of that is correct. I think the better way of looking at it is, would NCST, VT and Virginia generate as much football revenue as South Carolina? Just like the premise every school cannot be a king, every addition needs to generate some money and valuable content, but not necessarily Alabama or Texas value.

I get the $100 million average per team argument, but if the SEC and B1G are creating a college NFL, the value will come if they p8ck the best schools for rivalries and sufficiently large fanbases.

This brings up a threshold question: do the Big Ten and SEC actually want to create a college version of the NFL? The reflex of most of us here would be, “Yes! Of course!” I often have that reflex, too.

However, we should take a step back and examine money and power as separate items in a ledger. Money and power are obviously very closely related, but I think we too often use them interchangeably as if they’re one and the same.

IMHO, for the Big Ten and SEC, gaining power is more of a means to an end to maximize revenue as opposed to the other way around. That is, I believe that the #1 absolute priority for them is to maximize revenue and they will seek the right amount of power that they need (no more and no less) in order to maximize that revenue as opposed to seeking absolute power even if it means a reduction in revenue.

The Big Ten and SEC aren’t going to want to break away just for the sake of breaking away. Instead, it needs to be a true revenue maximizing exercise for them. The assumption is that breaking away also means making the most money for them may or may not be correct. That *could* be the case, but we don’t really know the cost of having large swaths or markets in the country that don’t have power conference representation. As of now, the only two markets of any material value (where either a power school is directly located in that market or a flagship/flagship equivalent is a dominant fan base) that you could argue that aren’t covered by one of the P4 are San Diego and Las Vegas. That could change drastically even if the Big Ten and SEC are at 24 teams each.

It also depends on what a “break away” actually means. Is it a totally walled off garden like the NFL where they *only* play each other or is it more like the English soccer system where there is a top level but they still play the lower levels at various points? My guess is that it’s going to be more like the latter because college athletics simply has a lot more in common in terms of the scale, size and spectrum to competition.

Finally, I think we ignore the simple levels of talent at our peril. As long as there is enough top talent to fill the starting lineups of 65 or so power teams at a certain competitive level, arbitrarily cutting the number of power teams off at 48 is going to ultimately backfire and the free market will eventually push the system back up to fill up where the top talent can be naturally allocated. We have seen this constantly in realignment where schools that pressed up against that talent threshold - such as Utah and TCU previously and now Cincinnati, UCF, Houston and BYU - are eventually incorporated into the power structure. It’s even more glaring in basketball - there are way more than 48 teams that can put together a power-level starting lineup in that sport. This also seems to point to a more English soccer-type system for college sports than a walled-off NFL system.

Ultimately, top talent finds a way and I don’t think we’re going back to the days where top recruits are willing to sit on the bench for multiple years for blue blood programs. Top talent wants to *play* to get into the NFL (or NBA or MLB or NHL). There are generally enough, say, 3-star recruits to fill out 65 or so power teams and, as long as that’s the case, then that will inform the number of teams at the power level regardless of any attempt to have an arbitrary cutoff that’s much lower than that number.

(03-04-2024 09:40 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 09:32 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 09:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  This is true for the Big Ten, but I believe the SEC has a handful of pro-rata additions baked into their contract.

Pro-rata additions just make sure the existing schools don't lose money; they don't necessarily increase money for those same schools, though.

Right. At the same time, eventually each of those schools need to pay for themselves in the long-term. The Big Ten took Washington and Oregon because their studies showed that they would ultimately add value in the long-term (so the fact that they are being paid partial revenue shares initially is just a bonus for the Big Ten). Matt Brown and others have indicated this in their reporting. In contrast, the Big Ten didn’t take Stanford and Cal even though the league would have been temporarily fine financially with the deal that Stanford/Cal took with the ACC (with a *vastly* reduced share) because it was determined that those schools wouldn’t be able to pay for themselves as equal members in the future.

Right, and eventually the market will inform the Big Ten that Rutgers, Maryland, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern etc do not pay for themselves because the conference has over expanded.

(03-04-2024 09:17 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’m a pretty big believer that conferences will only expand if they make more money per school for existing members.

At a certain point, math gets in the way.

The financial bar is *higher* for team #20 in the Big Ten and SEC than they were for team #16. Similarly, the bar is higher for team #24 than team #20.

There is no school in history that had more leverage to get whoever it wanted into a conference than Texas. We saw from the emails released in 2010 that they were insisting upon bringing Texas Tech to wherever it moved or else there would be no deal. The then-Pac-10 actually offered that and there were Big 12 schools that actually SIGNED documents to join that league, but Texas eventually backed out.

If Texas ultimately left the Big 12 with only Oklahoma (who is a valuable blue blood in its own right), then I just don’t see how UNC can force anyone to take NC State. I’m not saying that NC State doesn’t have value, but it’s simply not enough to add to the Big Ten or SEC and UNC itself isn’t so overwhelming valuable (in the way that Texas was) for a package deal to make sense.

The collapse of the Pac-12 really showed a LOT: it takes a Washington/Oregon-level brand to add money to the Big Ten (and by extension, the SEC), a combo of large market and elite academics isn’t good enough anymore (or else Stanford and Cal would be in the Big Ten), and there are a bunch of schools that are worth *something* (e.g. the Four Corners schools) but not necessarily enough to include in the Big Ten or SEC.

There are a lot of schools in the ACC that are like the Four Corners and Stanford/Cal, so there are a lot of schools with *some* value. However, I can count on one hand the number of ACC schools with Washington/Oregon-level value (and you’d probably have at least 1 or 2 fingers left over). I think many people vastly overrate the number of ACC schools that add money to the Big Ten/SEC, but paradoxically underrate how many schools have Four Corners-level value (where the ACC would survive even if it lost its 4 most valuable schools).

Agree. There's a big drop after the 20 or so powers. Another drop after 25 or so. Then from around 30 to 65 to 80 schools they are pretty interchangeable before you get another big drop. Only 2 to 10 non P5 schools are in the "interchangeable" category.

Note: Washington and Oregon, who barely made the cut, are in the #15-#25 group of teams.

(03-04-2024 10:16 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 02:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 01:02 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  North Carolina could perhaps negotiate a place in a P2 league for NC State by offering to bring Duke along.

It would be interesting to see how the money works. The revenue boost of adding UNC+Duke could help justify an invitation for the Wolfpack, especially if schools are willing to make arrangements involving partial shares.

A P2 destination for three NC schools with both big public universities included: this could enable the crafting of a financial plan that would mollify the NC Board of Governors (per their newly enacted policy).

At 18? No.

At 20? No.

At 24? Yes. But likely only in the SEC. North Carolina, Duke, N.C. State, Virginia, and Virginia Tech will move to any better paying conference which would take all 5.

The Big 10 if it wants to make a reasonable and money saving move to divisions of 6 with a conference of 24 simply wouldn't have enough slots. The SEC would.

The SEC would still have a slot for a second Florida school and it wouldn't matter that much if it was FSU or Miami. They would still have room for a needed 6th Western school in Kansas. And could then decide between Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Louisville. With Duke, Kansas, North Carolina, and Virginia in hand the need for Louisville wouldn't be that great. Georgia Tech is a very nice academic addition, but not particularly strong in any sport and lagging in revenue production and with Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, and Georgia drawing from the Atlanta market adding Clemson would bring another football value multiplier and also pick up a bit of the Atlanta market. I think Clemson would be #8.

But 24 members is the size that must be attained for this to happen at all.

Divisions are dead. Conferences aren't even sticking to the same number of fixed rivals.

I agree that divisions are dead. I know that there’s some type of almost hopeful nostalgia that reintroducing divisions in huge leagues would de facto make things feel more regional again as they were in the past, but the whole point of where the Big Ten and SEC are heading is about national brands. They want USC and Oregon playing Ohio State and Michigan playing each other every couple of years (at a minimum) and they want Texas and Oklahoma playing Georgia and Florida on a similar cadence.

These leagues can’t even figure out 3 protected rivals for each school that makes them happy (hence the flex protect system in the Big Ten) much less full-fledged divisions. For better or worse, divisions are over.

Rutgers would never make the Big 10 now. The bar is higher.

(03-04-2024 10:40 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 10:16 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 02:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 01:02 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  North Carolina could perhaps negotiate a place in a P2 league for NC State by offering to bring Duke along.

It would be interesting to see how the money works. The revenue boost of adding UNC+Duke could help justify an invitation for the Wolfpack, especially if schools are willing to make arrangements involving partial shares.

A P2 destination for three NC schools with both big public universities included: this could enable the crafting of a financial plan that would mollify the NC Board of Governors (per their newly enacted policy).

At 18? No.

At 20? No.

At 24? Yes. But likely only in the SEC. North Carolina, Duke, N.C. State, Virginia, and Virginia Tech will move to any better paying conference which would take all 5.

The Big 10 if it wants to make a reasonable and money saving move to divisions of 6 with a conference of 24 simply wouldn't have enough slots. The SEC would.

The SEC would still have a slot for a second Florida school and it wouldn't matter that much if it was FSU or Miami. They would still have room for a needed 6th Western school in Kansas. And could then decide between Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Louisville. With Duke, Kansas, North Carolina, and Virginia in hand the need for Louisville wouldn't be that great. Georgia Tech is a very nice academic addition, but not particularly strong in any sport and lagging in revenue production and with Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, and Georgia drawing from the Atlanta market adding Clemson would bring another football value multiplier and also pick up a bit of the Atlanta market. I think Clemson would be #8.

But 24 members is the size that must be attained for this to happen at all.

Divisions are dead. Conferences aren't even sticking to the same number of fixed rivals.

I agree that divisions are dead. I know that there’s some type of almost hopeful nostalgia that reintroducing divisions in huge leagues would de facto make things feel more regional again as they were in the past, but the whole point of where the Big Ten and SEC are heading is about national brands. They want USC and Oregon playing Ohio State and Michigan playing each other every couple of years (at a minimum) and they want Texas and Oklahoma playing Georgia and Florida on a similar cadence.

These leagues can’t even figure out 3 protected rivals for each school that makes them happy (hence the flex protect system in the Big Ten) much less full-fledged divisions. For better or worse, divisions are over.

I wish divisions would come back. I liked them. But its just not happening.

(03-04-2024 05:21 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 03:43 AM)TerpsvilleMayor Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 02:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 01:02 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  North Carolina could perhaps negotiate a place in a P2 league for NC State by offering to bring Duke along.

It would be interesting to see how the money works. The revenue boost of adding UNC+Duke could help justify an invitation for the Wolfpack, especially if schools are willing to make arrangements involving partial shares.

A P2 destination for three NC schools with both big public universities included: this could enable the crafting of a financial plan that would mollify the NC Board of Governors (per their newly enacted policy).

At 18? No.

At 20? No.

At 24? Yes. But likely only in the SEC. North Carolina, Duke, N.C. State, Virginia, and Virginia Tech will move to any better paying conference which would take all 5.

The Big 10 if it wants to make a reasonable and money saving move to divisions of 6 with a conference of 24 simply wouldn't have enough slots. The SEC would.

The SEC would still have a slot for a second Florida school and it wouldn't matter that much if it was FSU or Miami. They would still have room for a needed 6th Western school in Kansas. And could then decide between Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Louisville. With Duke, Kansas, North Carolina, and Virginia in hand the need for Louisville wouldn't be that great. Georgia Tech is a very nice academic addition, but not particularly strong in any sport and lagging in revenue production and with Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, and Georgia drawing from the Atlanta market adding Clemson would bring another football value multiplier and also pick up a bit of the Atlanta market. I think Clemson would be #8.

But 24 members is the size that must be attained for this to happen at all.

Duke probably won’t get a P2 spot. Why would it be lobbying for another school?

Don't think for a second that the SEC presidents would hesitate to have the Research Triangle association if it meant making a spot for Duke. Duke doesn't have to lobby for anyone. Tim Cook the CEO of Apple donates lavishly to two schools. His undergraduate Alma Mater: Auburn University and his graduate Alma Mater: Duke University. And he donates for academic endeavors and athletic endeavors. Whether you make it into a P2 has nothing to do with anything except 1 mandate, the court ruling on NIL and likely another coming, Employee Status. Duke will breeze in while some state schools of size will struggle. Duke doesn't have to make money to get. They have the money. All they really have to do is treat football seriously enough to be competitive. Other state schools without the pockets, though they are state funded, will struggle under the added overhead. The SEC and Big 10 schools are only considered ready because they have operated athletic budgets large enough to demonstrate their ability to handle what's coming. This is why when the PAC 12 was raided by the Big 10 the four schools taken were the top 4 revenue generators. It's why when the Big 12 was raided it first lost well-funded schools which were competitive like Colorado, Nebraska, Texas A&M and Missouri, but when Texas and Oklahoma left they were the top two earners and represented 56.3% of the Big 12's ability to generate business beyond the games themselves in terms of sales involving their name and activities beyond the universities' control within their sphere of influence. The reason more ACC schools are positioned to be taken is because their gap in revenue production between schools within the conference is relatively narrow and the top earners (the football first schools) and the best-known brands (the top basketball schools) are two different subsets. Their top earners last reported year were in order 1. FSU, 2. Duke, 3. Miami, 4. Clemson 5. Louisville

I was really disappointed when Duke let Elko go back to A&M so cheaply. I mean, happy for my Aggies ofc, but disappointed that Duke didn't pay what it cost to keep him. Kansas paid Leipold, after all, and Duke has a bigger Athletics budget than Kansas. Ofc, it's possible that Elko left in part b/c of the uncertain ACC football landscape moving forward, whereas the Big 12 seems reasonably secure.

(03-04-2024 05:57 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 05:38 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  PAC2 redux? Wake Forest, who provides some better sports programs than some of those “packaged targets”, and Boston College are left to rebuild the ACC?

If essentially the whole center of the ACC is lifted away plus a few others, why do it? It’s conference consolidations for nothing other than size and cost enhancements, and apparently planting the seeds for new baggage. Do that and see a split movement within five years. Diluting your product via extreme, unnecessary volume won’t go well. Having 11 kids instead of 3 or 4 maximum may mean none get to go to college.

Geez, now I am sounding like a Tarheel. Forcing full circle won’t be a resolution imo.

It's Tar Heel .

That's a reasonable mistake to make. I mean, I'm all about cool and unique Traditions, but sometimes they confuse outsiders.

(03-04-2024 10:35 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 09:48 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 09:40 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 09:32 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 09:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  This is true for the Big Ten, but I believe the SEC has a handful of pro-rata additions baked into their contract.

Pro-rata additions just make sure the existing schools don't lose money; they don't necessarily increase money for those same schools, though.

Right. At the same time, eventually each of those schools need to pay for themselves in the long-term. The Big Ten took Washington and Oregon because their studies showed that they would ultimately add value in the long-term (so the fact that they are being paid partial revenue shares initially is just a bonus for the Big Ten). Matt Brown and others have indicated this in their reporting. In contrast, the Big Ten didn’t take Stanford and Cal even though the league would have been temporarily fine financially with the deal that Stanford/Cal took with the ACC (with a *vastly* reduced share) because it was determined that those schools wouldn’t be able to pay for themselves as equal members in the future.

All of that is correct. I think the better way of looking at it is, would NCST, VT and Virginia generate as much football revenue as South Carolina? Just like the premise every school cannot be a king, every addition needs to generate some money and valuable content, but not necessarily Alabama or Texas value.

I get the $100 million average per team argument, but if the SEC and B1G are creating a college NFL, the value will come if they p8ck the best schools for rivalries and sufficiently large fanbases.

This brings up a threshold question: do the Big Ten and SEC actually want to create a college version of the NFL? The reflex of most of us here would be, “Yes! Of course!” I often have that reflex, too.

However, we should take a step back and examine money and power as separate items in a ledger. Money and power are obviously very closely related, but I think we too often use them interchangeably as if they’re one and the same.

IMHO, for the Big Ten and SEC, gaining power is more of a means to an end to maximize revenue as opposed to the other way around. That is, I believe that the #1 absolute priority for them is to maximize revenue and they will seek the right amount of power that they need (no more and no less) in order to maximize that revenue as opposed to seeking absolute power even if it means a reduction in revenue.

The Big Ten and SEC aren’t going to want to break away just for the sake of breaking away. Instead, it needs to be a true revenue maximizing exercise for them. The assumption is that breaking away also means making the most money for them may or may not be correct. That *could* be the case, but we don’t really know the cost of having large swaths or markets in the country that don’t have power conference representation. As of now, the only two markets of any material value (where either a power school is directly located in that market or a flagship/flagship equivalent is a dominant fan base) that you could argue that aren’t covered by one of the P4 are San Diego and Las Vegas. That could change drastically even if the Big Ten and SEC are at 24 teams each.

It also depends on what a “break away” actually means. Is it a totally walled off garden like the NFL where they *only* play each other or is it more like the English soccer system where there is a top level but they still play the lower levels at various points? My guess is that it’s going to be more like the latter because college athletics simply has a lot more in common in terms of the scale, size and spectrum to competition.

Finally, I think we ignore the simple levels of talent at our peril. As long as there is enough top talent to fill the starting lineups of 65 or so power teams at a certain competitive level, arbitrarily cutting the number of power teams off at 48 is going to ultimately backfire and the free market will eventually push the system back up to fill up where the top talent can be naturally allocated. We have seen this constantly in realignment where schools that pressed up against that talent threshold - such as Utah and TCU previously and now Cincinnati, UCF, Houston and BYU - are eventually incorporated into the power structure. It’s even more glaring in basketball - there are way more than 48 teams that can put together a power-level starting lineup in that sport. This also seems to point to a more English soccer-type system for college sports than a walled-off NFL system.

Ultimately, top talent finds a way and I don’t think we’re going back to the days where top recruits are willing to sit on the bench for multiple years for blue blood programs. Top talent wants to *play* to get into the NFL (or NBA or MLB or NHL). There are generally enough, say, 3-star recruits to fill out 65 or so power teams and, as long as that’s the case, then that will inform the number of teams at the power level regardless of any attempt to have an arbitrary cutoff that’s much lower than that number.

Well said, and I agree with everything you wrote above.

When I said a college football version of the NFL, I meant they want a top tier of schools that can be marketed like the NFL to a certain extent, but I do believe it would be a mistake to leave the rest of the schools behind, especially the M1 Big12. That conference has way too many really good college football programs with rich histories to be left behind.

Every conference should have the ability to compete at the highest level and win it all.

(03-04-2024 12:30 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 05:57 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 05:38 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  PAC2 redux? Wake Forest, who provides some better sports programs than some of those “packaged targets”, and Boston College are left to rebuild the ACC?

If essentially the whole center of the ACC is lifted away plus a few others, why do it? It’s conference consolidations for nothing other than size and cost enhancements, and apparently planting the seeds for new baggage. Do that and see a split movement within five years. Diluting your product via extreme, unnecessary volume won’t go well. Having 11 kids instead of 3 or 4 maximum may mean none get to go to college.

Geez, now I am sounding like a Tarheel. Forcing full circle won’t be a resolution imo.

It's Tar Heel .

That's a reasonable mistake to make. I mean, I'm all about cool and unique Traditions, but sometimes they confuse outsiders.

No confusion, not an outsider here. I know about rosin heels.

(03-04-2024 10:19 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 10:02 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 09:10 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 02:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 01:02 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  North Carolina could perhaps try to negotiate a place in a P2 league for NC State by offering to bring Duke along.

It would be interesting to see how the money works. The revenue boost of adding UNC+Duke could help justify an invitation for the Wolfpack, especially if schools are willing to make arrangements involving partial shares.

A P2 destination for three NC schools with both big public universities included: this could enable the crafting of a financial plan that would mollify the NC Board of Governors (per their newly enacted policy).

At 18? No.

At 20? No.

At 24? Yes. But likely only in the SEC. North Carolina, Duke, N.C. State, Virginia, and Virginia Tech will move to any better paying conference which would take all 5.

The Big 10 if it wants to make a reasonable and money saving move to divisions of 6 with a conference of 24 simply wouldn't have enough slots. The SEC would.

The SEC would still have a slot for a second Florida school and it wouldn't matter that much if it was FSU or Miami. They would still have room for a needed 6th Western school in Kansas. And could then decide between Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Louisville. With Duke, Kansas, North Carolina, and Virginia in hand the need for Louisville wouldn't be that great. Georgia Tech is a very nice academic addition, but not particularly strong in any sport and lagging in revenue production and with Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, and Georgia drawing from the Atlanta market adding Clemson would bring another football value multiplier and also pick up a bit of the Atlanta market. I think Clemson would be #8.

But 24 members is the size that must be attained for this to happen at all.

You have been including Kansas in your SEC expansionsion hypothticals for a few weeks consistently. Now you have also added Duke, which is in part more likely in that either Duke and Kansas both get invited or neither gets invited. Either basketball matters, or in their cases, big brand basketball matters, or it doesn't. It probably doesn't. If that is true, nothing else that makes them advantageous to the SEC matters either.

We all adjust details to fit the landscape, but JR has been steadfast for a long time about three things:
1. Kansas is a plus for the SEC
2. A second Florida school is desired by the SEC
3. We can expect big changes happening faster than many have expected
3a. This includes anything about the ACC that has the year '2036' printed on it

If you see a JR expansion scenario that doesn't mention Kansas to the SEC, call the FBI. Kidnappers are posting from his account.

JR has literally wriiten thousands of scenarios, some with Kansas, some without.

And why would I have written thousands of scenarios over 10 years here? I'll remind you that the first ones I wrote were 3 x 20 set ups in which the SEC and Big 10 expanded, the Big 10 out of the PAC 12 and the SEC out of the ACC because those were the two most natural expansions and the Big 12 grew on its own. That has proven to be reasonably accurate. I added Kansas when Texas and Oklahoma came on board. Their total WSJ valuation is second only to Notre Dame's of the remaining schools potentially available due to realignment, and their organic fit with the new SEC West is undeniable.

Kansas entered the picture when Texas and Oklahoma joined, and I always expected Texas and Oklahoma to eventually join because they both have been in talks with the SEC for 30 years or longer and the talks never fully ended. Texas's business model is their top priority and when the SWC succumbed to a death penalty for SMU and only 2 states in its footprint when the subscription pay model was coming into place, Texas made its next best play, a merger of brands with the Big 8 where their chief rival was located, Oklahoma. And why would they do that? It was the next best possible option for their business model (which was to play as many games in the state of Texas as possible. For conference play Texas was out of state once every two years under the SWC. In the Big 12 they had 4 home games 3 teams from Texas to play so 5 or 6 games in Texas plus the buy games annually. They chose the SEC because of proximity and the number of their rivals we possessed. It was the next best choice to the Big 12. And while in the Big 12 Ausitn worked quite amicably with Lawrence. And Kansas fills a need for massive hoops brand to pit against Kentucky.

Internal issues in Birmingham are mostly squabbles handled in house but occasionally they get a structural problem. The structural issue they have right now is lack of access to playing games in Florida because the Gators simply can't accommodate the demands. Simple solution: a second Florida school.

As to the timeline? It's demographic. Most Boomers will be older than 80 with the majority of them at and just entering their 90s if they are still alive in 2036. As a driving force for college football fandom, they will be ebbing and with them the dollars generated from interest in the sport as no subsequent generational grouping has their wealth or their interest. Yes, I've seen stats on what Gen Z will inherit, but they are also one of the most indebted generations in American history, in part thanks to student loans. Gen X is more Boomer oriented in likes, but less in volume. So, nobody is waiting to milk the last 10 golden years of college football. Whatever happens, happens fairly soon.

When court rulings apply to both NIL and employment status it is going to impact both revenue sports. Duke and North Carolina have tremendous brand power, just in the second money sport and not the first. The SEC obviously wants into North Carolina and taking South Carolina to go with Arkansas under Commissioner Kramer, after a larger move failed, was seen as building two bridges, one to Texas and the other to North Carolina. In 2011 after Cunningham had just become UNC's AD they reached out to the SEC in the wake of Maryland's departure to see if in the event further ACC defections happened if UNC and Duke would have a home in the SEC. Slive told them yes. So, if hoops brands are going to be impacted by the same legal forces altering football, and they will, I would assume that consideration is still viable. With the addition of Texas and Oklahoma to Alabama, L.S.U. Georgia, Tennessee, Florida, A&M and Auburn does the SEC need more football brands to max out football revenue? Not really. Could the SEC pick up more revenue by maxing out hoops? Most probably. Therefore, if taking N.C. State lands us North Carolina and Duke, especially if we can pick up at least 1 Virginia school I see a definite lean in this direction. Between North Carolina and Virginia you are adding 20 million plus growth to the SEC reach. A second Florida school double dips that state of 22 million. It is not only a reasonable move to make but a prudent one.

What all of you discount is what happens when the SEC and Big 10 lead a breakaway. Their content becomes the content for networks on Saturdays in an extended Fall Collegiate Season with the expanded playoffs. The schools in those conferences will have the greatest natural draw for audience assembled. CBS, NBC, ABC, and FOX 54 will all want games. ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, FS1 and FS2 will all want games. The SECN and BTN will have at least 2 per weekend. The number of schools in each conference will be determined by the amount of inventory needed to fill all of these slots. If a third conference in the upper tier breakaway is needed due to opt ins that too will have options to fill what the G5 once filled.

ESPN and FOX combining to stream with HULU in one massive sports package is not an accident either.

Football and basketball will combine to keep more revenue for the schools involved with their own playoff and tournament and there is zero danger of a backlash. What's not shown OTA is streamed. Who's in will be everyone who opts in. Who's excluded will be everyone who can't afford pay for play. We'll likely be looking at 60 to 72 schools and quite likely 3 conferences. But the SEC / Big 10 will dominate the OTA time because of the draw. And when football crowns a champ, basketball takes center stage and Kansas, Duke, and North Carolina are 3 of the 4 winningest programs of all time. Kansas is #1 and Kentucky #2. The networks get this even if fans don't.

As to the number of scenarios, those were the permutations foreseeable by me at any given time depending upon the variables in play.

The board is more set now. The variables are fewer, and the top teams on the board in terms of value are #Notre Dame at .928 billion. #2 Kansas at .427 billion, #3 Florida State at .390 billion, #4 Clemson at .380 billion and down from there.

I've always pinned these data sets: Total Revenue Production / Attendance (and it does matter as donations for tickets and ticket sales are still a major source of revenue) / WSJ valuations because it measures the financial impact outside of the school itself upon the businesses within its spere of influence / and TV numbers when I can find a good a source which is tough.

Look at what it is the Big 10 and SEC emphasizes, consider their needs, and if those two picks first the rest falls into place. Realignment & Consolidation is nothing more than product placement to enhance value.

(03-04-2024 09:10 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 02:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 01:02 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  North Carolina could perhaps negotiate a place in a P2 league for NC State by offering to bring Duke along.

It would be interesting to see how the money works. The revenue boost of adding UNC+Duke could help justify an invitation for the Wolfpack, especially if schools are willing to make arrangements involving partial shares.

A P2 destination for three NC schools with both big public universities included: this could enable the crafting of a financial plan that would mollify the NC Board of Governors (per their newly enacted policy).

At 18? No.

At 20? No.

At 24? Yes. But likely only in the SEC. North Carolina, Duke, N.C. State, Virginia, and Virginia Tech will move to any better paying conference which would take all 5.

The Big 10 if it wants to make a reasonable and money saving move to divisions of 6 with a conference of 24 simply wouldn't have enough slots. The SEC would.

The SEC would still have a slot for a second Florida school and it wouldn't matter that much if it was FSU or Miami. They would still have room for a needed 6th Western school in Kansas. And could then decide between Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Louisville. With Duke, Kansas, North Carolina, and Virginia in hand the need for Louisville wouldn't be that great. Georgia Tech is a very nice academic addition, but not particularly strong in any sport and lagging in revenue production and with Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, and Georgia drawing from the Atlanta market adding Clemson would bring another football value multiplier and also pick up a bit of the Atlanta market. I think Clemson would be #8.

But 24 members is the size that must be attained for this to happen at all.

You have been including Kansas in your SEC expansionsion hypothticals for a few weeks consistently. Now you have also added Duke, which is in part more likely in that either Duke and Kansas both get invited or neither gets invited. Either basketball matters, or in their cases, big brand basketball matters, or it doesn't. It probably doesn't. If that is true, nothing else that makes them advantageous to the SEC matters either.

A few weeks? He’s been bullish on KU for as long as I’ve known him.

(03-04-2024 09:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 09:17 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’m a pretty big believer that conferences will only expand if they make more money per school for existing members.

At a certain point, math gets in the way.

The financial bar is *higher* for team #20 in the Big Ten and SEC than they were for team #16. Similarly, the bar is higher for team #24 than team #20.

There is no school in history that had more leverage to get whoever it wanted into a conference than Texas. We saw from the emails released in 2010 that they were insisting upon bringing Texas Tech to wherever it moved or else there would be no deal. The then-Pac-10 actually offered that and there were Big 12 schools that actually SIGNED documents to join that league, but Texas eventually backed out.

If Texas ultimately left the Big 12 with only Oklahoma (who is a valuable blue blood in its own right), then I just don’t see how UNC can force anyone to take NC State. I’m not saying that NC State doesn’t have value, but it’s simply not enough to add to the Big Ten or SEC and UNC itself isn’t so overwhelming valuable (in the way that Texas was) for a package deal to make sense.

The collapse of the Pac-12 really showed a LOT: it takes a Washington/Oregon-level brand to add money to the Big Ten (and by extension, the SEC), a combo of large market and elite academics isn’t good enough anymore (or else Stanford and Cal would be in the Big Ten), and there are a bunch of schools that are worth *something* (e.g. the Four Corners schools) but not necessarily enough to include in the Big Ten or SEC.

There are a lot of schools in the ACC that are like the Four Corners and Stanford/Cal, so there are a lot of schools with *some* value. However, I can count on one hand the number of ACC schools with Washington/Oregon-level value (and you’d probably have at least 1 or 2 fingers left over). I think many people vastly overrate the number of ACC schools that add money to the Big Ten/SEC, but paradoxically underrate how many schools have Four Corners-level value (where the ACC would survive even if it lost its 4 most valuable schools).

This is true for the Big Ten, but I believe the SEC has a handful of pro-rata additions baked into their contract.

I strongly agree with Frank here. Is it possible that we both end up with a bunch more schools and a 2 Conference breakaway with 2-tiered payouts? Yes. However, the available evidence today, based upon 30+ years of P5 realignment, tells us that each school must pay their own way and bring the value long term. For a long time there was the Missouri Line, then it was the UCLA line, and now it’s the Washington Line.

If you don’t have a Capital B Brand like Washington, don’t bother calling us, and even if you do, we may or may not ever call you.

(03-04-2024 03:25 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 09:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 09:17 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’m a pretty big believer that conferences will only expand if they make more money per school for existing members.

At a certain point, math gets in the way.

The financial bar is *higher* for team #20 in the Big Ten and SEC than they were for team #16. Similarly, the bar is higher for team #24 than team #20.

There is no school in history that had more leverage to get whoever it wanted into a conference than Texas. We saw from the emails released in 2010 that they were insisting upon bringing Texas Tech to wherever it moved or else there would be no deal. The then-Pac-10 actually offered that and there were Big 12 schools that actually SIGNED documents to join that league, but Texas eventually backed out.

If Texas ultimately left the Big 12 with only Oklahoma (who is a valuable blue blood in its own right), then I just don’t see how UNC can force anyone to take NC State. I’m not saying that NC State doesn’t have value, but it’s simply not enough to add to the Big Ten or SEC and UNC itself isn’t so overwhelming valuable (in the way that Texas was) for a package deal to make sense.

The collapse of the Pac-12 really showed a LOT: it takes a Washington/Oregon-level brand to add money to the Big Ten (and by extension, the SEC), a combo of large market and elite academics isn’t good enough anymore (or else Stanford and Cal would be in the Big Ten), and there are a bunch of schools that are worth *something* (e.g. the Four Corners schools) but not necessarily enough to include in the Big Ten or SEC.

There are a lot of schools in the ACC that are like the Four Corners and Stanford/Cal, so there are a lot of schools with *some* value. However, I can count on one hand the number of ACC schools with Washington/Oregon-level value (and you’d probably have at least 1 or 2 fingers left over). I think many people vastly overrate the number of ACC schools that add money to the Big Ten/SEC, but paradoxically underrate how many schools have Four Corners-level value (where the ACC would survive even if it lost its 4 most valuable schools).

This is true for the Big Ten, but I believe the SEC has a handful of pro-rata additions baked into their contract.

I strongly agree with Frank here. Is it possible that we both end up with a bunch more schools and a 2 Conference breakaway with 2-tiered payouts? Yes. However, the available evidence today, based upon 30+ years of P5 realignment, tells us that each school must pay their own way and bring the value long term. For a long time there was the Missouri Line, then it was the UCLA line, and now it’s the Washington Line.

If you don’t have a Capital B Brand like Washington, don’t bother calling us, and even if you do, we may or may not ever call you.

You're oversimplifying things here. The Missouri (or Rutgers, Maryland etc) addition was because their market mattered at the time. We're moving away from that.

The fact of the matter is ESPN baked in the flexibility to expand into the SEC's contract without having to open it back up. The Big Ten did not. The SEC doesn't have near the dregs the Big Ten has, so adding a Virginia, Duke, or NC State is not going to send them into a tizzy whether you agree or not.

Frank, I get six ACC schools that have enough value for one or the other B1G or SEC.

1. Notre Dame
2. Florida State (more for the B1G/FOX than for SEC/ESPN)
3. North Carolina
4. Miami (for the B1G/Fox)
5. Clemson (the numbers say high value, the geography and academics dent that).
6. Virginia (for the SEC)

Clemson is the most borderline in value, because they do not fit a B1G profile or desired market, and for the SEC their market is completely saturated already by Georgia and South Carolina. Florida State is also a bit saturated for the SEC being close to Auburn, Alabama, Georgia and Florida. Maryland dents the value of Virginia for the B1G, as that already gets them in DC/DMV market; still valuable, just not fully virgin turf.

There is a reason Thamel said North Carolina and Virginia are the stronger combo for the SEC. And Fox really likes Florida, where Florida State and if not North Carolina, then Miami could be the play. Notre Dame could open the door for somebody else if they join the B1G significantly after a Florida State move, necessitating a possible 22nd if there isn't a 10 game schedule by then (need even number of games for odd number of teams to work).

But yes, after these moves, everyone looks like a Utah, Arizona type school. There is a short list of UConn, Memphis, South Florida, even Tulane, to shore up any losses that drop the ACC below their contractual 15. They will survive.

I actually think the B1G and SEC are perfectly happy with a 2P + 2 arrangement. It's a large enough ecosystem for them to reside in, without having to add schools they don't truly want. I don't see either in a rush to add anyone. My WAG is FSU takes a few years to get out, and Notre Dame runs through their contract with NBC before doing anything.

(03-04-2024 10:36 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 09:40 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 09:32 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 09:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  This is true for the Big Ten, but I believe the SEC has a handful of pro-rata additions baked into their contract.

Pro-rata additions just make sure the existing schools don't lose money; they don't necessarily increase money for those same schools, though.

Right. At the same time, eventually each of those schools need to pay for themselves in the long-term. The Big Ten took Washington and Oregon because their studies showed that they would ultimately add value in the long-term (so the fact that they are being paid partial revenue shares initially is just a bonus for the Big Ten). Matt Brown and others have indicated this in their reporting. In contrast, the Big Ten didn’t take Stanford and Cal even though the league would have been temporarily fine financially with the deal that Stanford/Cal took with the ACC (with a *vastly* reduced share) because it was determined that those schools wouldn’t be able to pay for themselves as equal members in the future.

Right, and eventually the market will inform the Big Ten that Rutgers, Maryland, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern etc do not pay for themselves because the conference has over expanded.

What the market is telling the B1G today is “you’re doing a LOT better than the ACC”. Perhaps you guys should be taking notes from your glass house instead of throwing Stones from it.

(03-04-2024 03:25 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 09:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 09:17 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’m a pretty big believer that conferences will only expand if they make more money per school for existing members.

At a certain point, math gets in the way.

The financial bar is *higher* for team #20 in the Big Ten and SEC than they were for team #16. Similarly, the bar is higher for team #24 than team #20.

There is no school in history that had more leverage to get whoever it wanted into a conference than Texas. We saw from the emails released in 2010 that they were insisting upon bringing Texas Tech to wherever it moved or else there would be no deal. The then-Pac-10 actually offered that and there were Big 12 schools that actually SIGNED documents to join that league, but Texas eventually backed out.

If Texas ultimately left the Big 12 with only Oklahoma (who is a valuable blue blood in its own right), then I just don’t see how UNC can force anyone to take NC State. I’m not saying that NC State doesn’t have value, but it’s simply not enough to add to the Big Ten or SEC and UNC itself isn’t so overwhelming valuable (in the way that Texas was) for a package deal to make sense.

The collapse of the Pac-12 really showed a LOT: it takes a Washington/Oregon-level brand to add money to the Big Ten (and by extension, the SEC), a combo of large market and elite academics isn’t good enough anymore (or else Stanford and Cal would be in the Big Ten), and there are a bunch of schools that are worth *something* (e.g. the Four Corners schools) but not necessarily enough to include in the Big Ten or SEC.

There are a lot of schools in the ACC that are like the Four Corners and Stanford/Cal, so there are a lot of schools with *some* value. However, I can count on one hand the number of ACC schools with Washington/Oregon-level value (and you’d probably have at least 1 or 2 fingers left over). I think many people vastly overrate the number of ACC schools that add money to the Big Ten/SEC, but paradoxically underrate how many schools have Four Corners-level value (where the ACC would survive even if it lost its 4 most valuable schools).

This is true for the Big Ten, but I believe the SEC has a handful of pro-rata additions baked into their contract.

I strongly agree with Frank here. Is it possible that we both end up with a bunch more schools and a 2 Conference breakaway with 2-tiered payouts? Yes. However, the available evidence today, based upon 30+ years of P5 realignment, tells us that each school must pay their own way and bring the value long term. For a long time there was the Missouri Line, then it was the UCLA line, and now it’s the Washington Line.

If you don’t have a Capital B Brand like Washington, don’t bother calling us, and even if you do, we may or may not ever call you.

That's not how any of this will work. Remember the days when Frank swore there would be no breakaway and the NCAA is what everyone wanted to remain with? It was just about a year and a half ago! And as always anyone who thought otherwise was "crazy".

You avoid a lot of legal issues if the SEC and Big 10 form the crux of this move, but allow for opt ins.

1. The variables belong to the networks and what they want. A contained upper tier works just as well for them with a Big 10 and SEC as the dominant conferences and the Big 12 and ACC as a M2.

In that world moving FSU to resolve ACC conflict and letting the SEC move to 18 to match the Big 10 stabilizes things with the fewest actual moves. The ACC is set at 16 plus one by bringing Cal, Stanford and SMU fully on board and keeping N.D. as a partial.

This way, depending upon opt ins the Big 12 or ACC can grow a bit more or not.

For the networks the revenue paid out to the Big 10 and SEC vs that of the Big 12 and ACC remains rather constant. And consolidation continues once the number of schools involved is known and a format for them can be planned.

2. FOX and ESPN want to coalesce the most profitable brands with the greatest draw in the two Super conferences and each want to sew those up and complete them as the main card on Saturday's event schedule. FOX is anxious to sew up Notre Dame and ESPN wants to separate out by value the product in the ACC.

This is the world where 20 and 24 school conferences are possible if the networks know how much inventory they need and how best to position it for draw. The third conference is still viable but as a compilation of the remainder of those schools not called up to the Big 10 or SEC for reasons specific more to network interests than conference ones.

3. The number of opt ins is in the lower range and it is determined that it is easier to manage if they are in just 2 conferences with a total of 56 to 60 schools.

You see Bryan Form always follows function. If the Function is a closed upper tier with an expanded CFP of 16 teams then the Form will be shaped to serve the function. And another function like to produce a particular amount of inventory for any given Saturday for all of the OTA and Cable networks and the Form changes again in terms of conference size, possibly even the number of conferences.

That schools that want to be included will create a problem for an upper tier with a set number of schools in conferences, as Frank indicates, has already been accounted for. The Form is always altered to fit the Function.

As I see it there are at least 4 functions that are required. Inventory demands, the ability to opt into the tier, and the size of the playoffs (and for hoops the tourney field), and segregation by value to the network. The number of conferences (part of form) the number of divisions (which assists the number of playoff slots) and the segregation by value to the network cannot be accomplished until the number of schools is known. So set a date to apply to play in the new tier, build your conferences and divisions accordingly and let the form provide the playoff teams. Segregate the conferences by value to the networks and that's how it works.

It is precisely the systemic approach which brought us the current NFL out of the old AFC and NFC with one exception. Those were business franchises and not state universities. Pay for play and contracts though are the better common ground.