Comments on: Big Bang Theories: The Countdown To Super-Conferences (Part 2)

By: Your Sunday Chryco Auto News UPDATE: | Chryco Auto News Digest

Your Sunday Chryco Auto News UPDATE: | Chryco Auto News Digest — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 23:43:05 +0000

[...] mean more cash. Gee’s “16 to 20″ comment didn’t catch us off guard (and if you read this, this, this, and this it didn’t catch you off guard either). So what’s all this hubbub mean for the [...]

By: slance66

slance66 — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:47:56 +0000

John,

Really like the articles. But where do you get the research numbers? For Example, UConn is #77 in the NSF survey, so clearly in the top 100. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/profiles/ranking.cfm#U

Also, what value to give to cultural fits. You mention BYU fitting with say, Kansas (which isn’t asking much) but I think Illinois, Minnesota and Wisconsin fitting with Georgia, NC or VA is asking quite a lot. I think there is a Mason-Dixon line effect that is still in play.

By: Your Saturday Chryco Auto News UPDATE | Chryco Auto News Digest

Your Saturday Chryco Auto News UPDATE | Chryco Auto News Digest — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 17:18:42 +0000

[...] which schools might be looking to switch conferences in order to bolster their bank accounts. In Part Two we examined those 25 “up for grabs” schools to see which ones would probably be on power [...]

By: spoxjox

spoxjox — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 00:01:14 +0000

@Sooner_Stampede Sadly, Sooner_Stampede is mistaken re: BYU. He is correct on the Sunday play issue, but wrong on everything else. BYU did not demand “a set number of nationally televised games each year”; the very idea is absurd and merits no more discussion than to point out how ridiculous the idea is and that BYU never demanded any such thing. You might as well accuse BYU of having demanded to play the fourth quarter of every game without the opposing team on the field.

As for wanting “the rights to all of their games so they could re-air them on BYUtv”, this is a blatant misstatement. BYU wanted third-tier rights and rebroadcast rights.

The first thing, third-tier rights, are all but irrelevant from the Big 12′s point of view, and would allow BYU to broadcast its home games THAT NO ONE ELSE WANTS. Hardly a controversial desire, and not something that would cost a conference much (or, in fact, really anything).

The second thing, rebroadcast rights, could potentially make it more difficult for a conference to strike a deal with an ESPN or NBC — but ESPN has no problem with rebroadcast, and frankly, most networks covet them only for the “what if?” scenario and end up never using the games for rebroadcast anyway. In any case, BYU was up-front about being willing to negotiate (read: give up) rebroadcast rights for tier I and II games.

Sunday play, geography, and (privately) cultural fit might be reasonable considerations with BYU. The broadcast rights questions that Sooner_Stampede brings up are nonsense. I understand that Sooner_Stampeded did not make these up; several self-styled “analysts” have used these issues to pretend they know what they are talking about. But they do not, and S_S has hitched his wagon to the wrong horse if these are his reasons for doubting a BYU fit with the Big 12.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 05:03:07 +0000

@AllTideUp The Big 12 requires 8 teams leaving for better pastures to dissolve their grant of rights and the conference. Taking 8 of those schools to merge with the SEC and the Southern ACC members is ideal for a move to 32 which in my opinion would be as big as it ever gets. The PAC/Big 10 would do the same and we would be set and with a lot more leverage for TV negotiations.

I believe 75% is required to dissolve the ACC as well. But in reality if the Virginia and Carolina schools leave the conference is dead.

You are right about the value of the ACC teams. I’m sure they want to preserve rivalries as well. It seems to me to be the best way to accomplish this mess.

I understand the reasoning behind the footprint models and wanting new markets but you cant sell Cincinnati and Pittsburgh to the average SEC fan and that’s one reason the ACC is in the shape it is. They forgot their roots and wound up with an incongruous mess. The weakness of the Big 12 has always been too many Texas teams, the same dysfunction that killed the old SWC. That’s why going big is perfect. It gives the entire Southeast to the identity of the ACC and it provides the necessary dilution for the Texas teams.

We know our 14 teams. If the 10 you pick up from the ACC are: Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, N.C. State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami, and Louisville (as you suggested). Then add these 8 from the Big 12 and you own the valuable commodity in college football in content, markets, and talent: Texas, Baylor, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, and West Virginia. And while I don’t love Lubbock the reason you take Texas Tech is because they complete the trio that receive Oil endowment money from the Lone Star state (Texas, Texas A&M, and Texas Tech). And for those who require academics that gives us a block of 10 AAU schools to compete with the Big 10.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 03:52:18 +0000

@JRsec I would agree with that. This GOR agreement that the Big 12 would seem to have those schools locked up together though. Not that I’m a legal expert, but I would think unless that league merges with another then I don’t really see them breaking up anytime soon. I would even be accepting of an SEC/Big 12 merger liked I’ve talked about in the past, but I would be surprised by that. I’d be surprised by any sort of merger or mass movement actually, but it does make sense that that trend would develop eventually.

I don’t know how many members it would take to dissolve the ACC, but if that number were to abandon ship and come to the SEC as long as the lower-tier products are left behind then that might be optimal. The ACC schools actually have much higher ratings overall than one might expect and that’s the current makeup minus any new additions. It would be the ultimate power conference.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 00:58:10 +0000

@AllTideUp You are right about the markets, but personally I would like to see the groupings stay below the Mason Dixon line and extend into the Southwest if we move to 32. The quality of football in the Big 12 is the greater reason to move to 32 in that direction than in picking up B.C., Pitt, Syracuse & UConn.

Think about it, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, West Virginia and either Louisville, Baylor, or TCU would be better for our Western-most teams. The satisfaction level alone for fans of the SEC, Big 12, and Southern ACC teams would be off the charts. We’d have our 32. We could settle in and work on schedules and rotations while the Big 10 and PAC tried to piece together 32 of their own. Together they stand at 26 now so it shouldn’t take them too long to solve the puzzle.

Two conferences of 32 with two regions each of 16 with two divisions each made up of 4 rotating half divisions should solve the play off scenario as well.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 00:26:10 +0000

@JRsec If some sort of merger were in the works then taking all 14 current ACC schools might not be bad. The additional content and markets would be strong overall with 28 teams. At that point you’re really getting to a point where the capabilities of an SEC Network would rival one of the partner networks of ESPN. Some of the best football schools combined with many of the best basketball programs would be a force one way or the other.

Throw in potential additions of Cincinnati, UConn(which I don’t think the Big Ten is interested in), SMU, and maybe one other…and there’s a very solid 32.

By: SECExpansionYeah

SECExpansionYeah — Tue, 25 Dec 2012 09:10:57 +0000

Big Ten has no interest in the South. Setting up shop down there is a losing battle they know they can never win. Midwest and Northeast locked down is their goal.

Big Ten To 20 w/ UConn, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, BC, Cuse, Kansas.

SEC picks up: FSU, VA, VT, UNC, NC State, Clemson

GT, Duke, Wake… and remaining private schools form the once talked-about Marigold conference as the “Southern Ivies”

GT, Duke, Wake, Miami, Tulane, Rice, Baylor, ect.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Tue, 25 Dec 2012 05:48:54 +0000

@AllTideUp Not much with the system per se, but the politicians of the State have been used to having all four taken care of in the ACC. There will be some pressure for Wake within the state which may exert influence on their university system. But I like your suggestion of Louisville. They would be much better on so many levels.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Tue, 25 Dec 2012 02:18:07 +0000

@JRsec What influence does Wake carry within the UNC system? I wouldn’t think it would be very much as they are a small private school, but I honestly don’t know.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 23:00:30 +0000

@LifeLongGarnetGold @AllTideUp I understand what you are saying about Wake, I just thought it might speed things along with the University of North Carolina System and their politics. It really is the only scenario that makes any sense.

By: LifeLongGarnetGold

LifeLongGarnetGold — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 22:57:37 +0000

@AllTideUp @JRsec
Like it, agree, concur, ditto, hear hear!

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 22:07:32 +0000

@JRsec The way things are lining up, it’s not as much about academics as some have said although that’s a factor, it’s not as much about money as some have said although that’s a factor certainly, but it seems to be more about stability and long term security. Those are the things you really can’t measure in dollars or fan attendance, but you know the bottom line(academically and athletically) is better off in the long term if you have them. The SEC, Big Ten, Pac 12, and at least for now the Big 12 are the most stable and secure entities out there right now. Consequently, the weight of those leagues is drawing others in.

I can’t complain about the idea of absorbing the Southern ACC schools at this point with one exception. Now that Louisville is a part of the ACC(I’m still getting used to that idea) I would take them in place of Wake. I don’t think WF is going anywhere in this realignment business as they don’t spend a lot of money and don’t deliver the NC market. And it would be overkill if the other 3 NC schools are already on board. Plus, I believe they lost their AAU status.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 20:48:00 +0000

@AllTideUp I don’t think we could agree any more than we do on this subject. The Southeastern United States is the game of college football today. To let Jim Delany or any other conference into the old footprint of the ACC is a huge financial mistake. It’s not popular among the chat boards but I thought long ago that the SEC should accept all of the ACC schools from Virginia South. That would be 24 of the most viable states for the watching of football in the nation, especially with the new found rivalries and old re-untied rivalries hitting the TV screen. People forget but the longest running rivalry in the Southeast until the mid 1970′s was Auburn vs Georgia Tech.

We would only grow stronger and there would be a great chance that eventually a few more of the Texas and Oklahoma schools would be drawn to that strength as opposed to moving to an also ran conference to wither and die. Aggie has opened their eyes on this. Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, & Kansas State, West Virginia and Louisville would complete a very nice 32 team super conference of all the most relevant programs in college football. All the other conferences combined would have only Notre Dame, Ohio State, Michigan, U.S.C., Oregon, Wisconsin, and maybe in a few years Penn State to rally around.

The scheduling would just be 2 x 16 with some crossover play.

Anyway I totally agree about F.S.U. and think the merger should still be considered.
Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, N.C. State, Wake Forest, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami, F.S.U.
That’s a few top potential adds, 5 mid level adds, and 2 new Vanderbilt / Kentucky type adds. There is balance there. They improve our Basketball, we given them football credentials, they give us academic status, and we give them more sports revenue. And the rest of the starving conferences will just have to a find or build a new talent pool. I just don’t want the *&*% Big 10 in my back yard!

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 20:12:02 +0000

@JRsec Speaking of Florida State, I really believe it would be smart for the SEC to pursue them. Additional cable households or not, they are a top 10 brand in this game and those sorts of quality schools aren’t available very often. Branding, quality of content, and immediate ratings bonus despite whatever competition they are up against…FSU is top notch. I’m concerned about the Big 12 nabbing them or maybe even the Big Ten. And my biggest fear there is not that FSU would become some unstoppable superpower on the field in another conference that would wreak havoc on SEC teams, it’s that the long term value of a school like that can’t be measured. Any conference is better off with them than without them. Any other league grabbing them, especially the ones with GOR agreements, gain an immediate financial advantage whether they have a competitive one or not.

I’m becoming convinced that conference realignment is more a game of survival than simply the money-grab that everyone says it is. There will be more money, sure, but you’ve written on many occasions about funds drying up in an ever-shrinking economy. That could become increasingly true in coming years and either way, markets will fluctuate within the current dynamics. In times of uncertainty, what do you need? Answer: commodities. FSU is a commodity in college sports.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 01:23:07 +0000

@JRsec Yeah, I think ESPN often floats misinformation out there at times like this…they did much the same thing back when A&M and Mizzou were working on coming to the SEC. ESPN is no longer an unbiased news source and quite frankly pales in comparison to Mr SEC when it comes to putting out valid info on realignment.

I could buy the idea of GT and UNC being targets as I believe UNC is a more profitable commodity than UVA, but all the talk has been of UVA and GT being very close to bolting for the Big Ten. And it’s hard to imagine that at least 2 of the 3 NC schools would not be heading for the same league under these circumstances.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 23:43:33 +0000

@AllTideUp It it’s true that Virginia Tech and Virginia are trying to get into the Big 10 as a pair that could mean that Delany is trying to land U.N.C., Ga.Tech, U.Va, and Va Tech to get to 18. That means the SEC may go for Duke and/or N.C. State, and Pitt but who for #18, Cincinnati or F.S.U.? I’m not sure I believe this rumor. I would be more likely to believe Duke, U.N.C., UVa, & Ga Tech to the Big 10. Then we could go with N.C. State, Va Tech, Pitt and either Cincy or Florida State and wait to see what happens with the Big 12.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 18:40:24 +0000

ESPN is floating the rumor that the Big Ten is going after Georgia Tech and UNC…at least they say that is what officials from UConn and Cincinnati believe. And they’re floating that idea in a story about Boise State. Interesting.

Anyway, if it’s true that UNC/Duke can be separated then that would change the dynamics of the discussion.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 17:14:42 +0000

@JRsec For Pitt, if the ACC is falling apart then I would think they would be interested in any lifeline they are offered. It’s similar to their situation in the Big East, if the league becomes non-viable then an out of the box option becomes better than no options essentially. They would be a good fit for the Big Ten, but would double down on a market already covered by them. In a sense, they could be the GT of the SEC. The SEC is less inclined towards a school like GT because of the market factors. Pitt fits that mold from the other side of things.

I imagine they would take the Big 12 or the Pac 12, but the Pac 12 would need to put together an Eastern division for that sort of thing to be viable. Also, I would think Pitt would prefer the SEC over the Big 12 despite any connections to WVU.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 17:05:21 +0000

@JRsec @JansonRoberts If it’s a matter of one league or the other providing the best options for an entire state’s worth of schools then that would seem to indicate the SEC would have the inside track. I can’t see the Big Ten taking non-AAU schools right now unless they were desperate perhaps to hold onto their grip of that organization. NC State and Virginia Tech would fit just fine in the SEC whereas they don’t fit in the BIg Ten at all and I’m not even sure that those schools would be interested in the Big Ten.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 13:09:55 +0000

@JansonRoberts @AllTideUp With Duke, Virginia, & U.N.C. to the B1G, the alternates would be N.C. State and stop at 18 and wait to see what happens with the Big 12.

Without a Duke or U.N.C. I don’t think Cincinnati would be as appealing. Cincinnati would have appeal in a scenario where 64 or 68 schools were being taken and the strong brands were already off the table. Pitt would be appealing but would only really have any kind of tie to the SEC if Cincinnati and West Virginia were in the mix. I don’t know if just Virginia Tech would be enough to pull them in. And if the SEC has Virginia Tech there is really no need to look at West Virginia in a move to 20. Va Tech gives you essentially the same market only enhanced.

The point I made in another post on this thread is that if the Big 10 and SEC move to 18 or more there aren’t enough viable programs for the Big 12 to expand profitably and that eventually a merger or something like it will have to take place with the PAC. At that time the GOR and other legal concerns will be nil. So depending upon the SEC’s desires for new markets a Baylor, or OU, or OK St. may be something the conference could look at.

As per the potential additions of Clemson and F.S.U. should that ever become a point for consolidation, Florida sponsored F.S.U. in 1992 for SEC membership. South Carolina’s legislature has already indicated their preference for having the Gamecocks & Clemson to play annual games. Spurrier has indicated no resistance to adding Clemson and he doesn’t speak off of the party line too frequently. I believe at 20 team conferences that in state rivals will be considered for both content additions and to preserve rivalries that would be lost to scheduling conflicts if the two wind up in different conferences. And if the Big 12 and PAC do merge at some point and the Big 10 is not interested in Clemson then their legislature will bring political pressure for the SEC to take their Tigers.

Finally with money being essentially equal between the Big 10 and SEC, as far as sports broadcasting is concerned, the decisions of Duke, Virginia, and U.N.C. will come down to which conference offers the best package for inclusion of N.C. State and Virginia Tech. The second consideration will be pleasing their largest donors. The third will be for the best recruiting, and the last will be for research dollars as those institutions are quite well endowed. But as you say we’ll see.

By: JansonRoberts

JansonRoberts — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 05:29:26 +0000

@AllTideUp @JRsec
Thanks for your input. I know WVA has awesome fan support there at the stadium, but looking at the numbers that John posted above, wouldn’t Pitt have a much greater value to the SEC than WVA? I don’t know the numbers of WVA, but there were not alot of positives last year when WVA was being brought up as a possible invite before Mizzou came on board. AAU, market and cable TV sets in the state by far favor Pitt. Top 20 in research expenditure in Pitt.Then look strictly at the recruiting potential and I can’t see WVA having near the value as Pitt would bring. The only thing that hits me though about PITT is that they are not Southern ( but neither is WVA ) And I can still remember Dorsett and Dan Marino coming out of that University, I believe. It is alot to consider and it is very interesting

By: JansonRoberts

JansonRoberts — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 05:13:21 +0000

@JRsec @AllTideUp
Appreciate your input. I like your wish list. Aim High. Slive is good but maybe our wish list is a bit much for even him to pull off. But what a conference if it could be done. My doubts would come from UVA. There has been alot of smoke in regards to UVA and GT having one foot out the door just wating to see how Maryland maks out with the exit penalty before they step on out to the B1G. I have spoken to a few Tar Heel friends and they seem to think UNC and Duke would lean to the B1G also from strictly an academic standing. But who can know anything for sure. If the North division didn’t include UVA, Duke and UNC what is your next best wishes in place of those three? After reading John’s posting above and looking strictly at markets and revenue numbers, there are 2 schools that I would like to take a very strong look at. Pitt jumping out the most, while Cincinnati also quite appealing. The con is neither are Southern and neither are considered powerhouses, but as told time and again this realignment round is not about on the field product as much as it is about new markets with enlarging the footprint. I would like to see the the numbers as shown above for WVA. NCST would also be a possibility if UVA, Duke and UNC are off the table so to speak.I really want to stop with FSU as far as the State of Florida is concerned. Miami has had quite a history, but not really feeling or seeing adding them if we already have FSU on the list. After the problems the SEC had with finally getting the official announcement of adding A&M because of the threats made by Baylor and a few others in the Big12 last year, A&M and some other presidents in the SEC would be hard pressed to ever get any peace of mind in adding any of those schools to the SEC. Of course if OU or tu called, I imagine there would be a quick conference meeting to seriously discuss those 2 schools. But I don’t see either of those 2 schools calling the SEC. SO we are back to your original wish list, which I am totally on board with, and possibly having 3 alternates or UVA, UNC and Duke.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 03:37:42 +0000

@AllTideUp @JansonRoberts I think we would take West Virginia if Virginia Tech is off of the table. They essentially bring the same market, only Tech brings more. Cincinnati is a real sleeper for a new market with potential to grow. Pittsburgh is also very viable from an economic standpoint. It just really depends on the order in which teams are taken for the SEC to have potential to find profit in 24. Baylor for instance may not be welcome in the PAC, but they would bring the SEC a larger share of Dallas / Ft. Worth and with better academics and a more complete sports package than T.C.U. So there would be options out there and if those options would be a net positive then they would be considered. My personal wish list for the SEC would be:
North: Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech
East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
South: Alabama, Clemson, Florida State, Mississippi State, Tennessee
West: Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M

I don’t think that is what we will get, but I can’t imagine a more solid brand oriented balanced conference than that one.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 03:20:20 +0000

@JRsec @JansonRoberts Some sort of merger between the PAC 12 and the Big 12 might be in the best interest of both leagues assuming enough parties from both leagues would be interested in moving forward. WVU would be better suited in the SEC and I even thought last year that WVU would have been a good addition, but especially in this climate where content could be so valuable. Iowa State, not sure. They would fit in the Big Ten and they would fit in with with any new conglomeration as well. They aren’t really much further East or North of the Kansas schools where most schools from the West coast would have to fly into KC anyway. The difference in air time from KC to Des Moines wouldn’t be that great and the Big 12 schools are already used to playing each other. Plus, ISU is an AAU school and those schools are in short supply. You could trade UNLV or New Mexico for WVU and that league would be complete I think. Instead of a PAC 12 or 20, you could call it the Pacific Western Conference or something like that…I plan on taking royalties for that name if it is used.

If that league grew to 24 then I’m not sure there would be enough quality schools for the Big Ten and the SEC to both reach 24 in any congruent fashion, but it would be interesting.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 03:16:14 +0000

@DanHogan @John at MrSEC Other bloggers processed the math long ago and came up with the conclusion that 4 x 16 wouldn’t work long before traditional sites got on board. The chess pieces as you call them have value just as they do in chess. They count for new markets, academic fit, cultural fit, attendance, away crowd attendance, profitability, and multiple sports draws. Geography and the above factors were what made the theory of 4 x 16 impractical a year ago when some were already talking in terms of 18 and 20. Chess involves thinking 3 moves in advance to rate at an intermediate level, 5 moves ahead for competition, and even more progressions to be successful. It follow strategies and understands outcomes based upon moves made. It’s goal is to checkmate the opposition. I grew weary of those who just reported the standard fare issued by the conference press releases a year ago. John here has done an admirable job of keeping abreast of the variables in consideration. But as will all things you have to have a variety of information to gain a clearer understanding of the process. The greatest factor in this realignment movement is outside of the sports world. It is the shrinking revenue bases of State governments across the country in this false recovery. As Federal and State monies shrink these schools are scrambling to find new relatively long term guaranteed revenue streams.

Enter the networks. When you are doing your additions for the Big 10 and SEC you need to check the vantage point of which Networks currently own which rights to which teams. ESPN isn’t going to want to lose Duke and North Carolina to Fox who through YES now owns 51% of the BTN.. They probably don’t care that much about Virginia. They are not going to want to lose Texas and Oklahoma to Comcast (PAC) either. This last variable may prove to be the most influential before this plays out. It could result in the survival of the ACC and the destruction of the Big 12 thereby reversing all of these strategies.

You can also bet the farm that if ESPN thinks there is any chance to land Notre Dame for a few games a year via the ACC they will move to shore up that investment. Both the states of Texas and North Carolina had too many schools in one conference to make their cable marketability viable. Moving a few Texas schools to the SEC, PAC and ACC relieve that problem. Permitting Virginia Tech and N.C. State to find another home opens up new slots for marketability in the ACC. Should U.N.C. or Duke (not both) make a move to the Big 10 without Virginia and with the addition of either Connecticut or Boston College then the ESPN interest in moving the Texa-homa group to the ACC where they are the sole property of ESPN becomes a viable counter move to deplete Fox inventory. Add the other valuable Big 12 properties to either the ACC or SEC and ESPN retains most of their rights to these teams.

If the ACC loses Duke & B.C. to the Big 10 and Va Tech & N.C. State to the SEC they can take Texas under the same terms as Notre Dame, add Baylor, Kansas, Oklahoma, Ok. State, West Virginia, & K State and retire to 16 full members and two hybrids. If they don’t like the academics of Ok State, KState and WVU they have S.M.U., Iowa State, Tulane and Rice to bolster those numbers. I just think they are past that way of thinking now that they’ve added Louisville and realized in doing so that sports ability is at least as important to the survival of their conference as academics.

So keep thinking outside of the box, but be cognizant that the final say in some of these moves will come from those who are paying for the product. The plans of conference commissioners and college presidents will take a back seat to the money.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 02:47:15 +0000

@USCTraveler A question I’ve had recently does actually surround the Big 12 GOR. There’s so much talk of FSU and Clemson going to the Big 12, but they would have to sign on to this GOR in order to join up. Would that be a deterrent for them? It’s more understandable why the current Big 12 schools signed on as they were desperate, but would schools like FSU, Clemson, and others be more patient in hopes of landing a spot in a more profitable and more stable(in the long term) SEC?

I don’t know very much about this GOR agreement, but it’s certainly a ball and chain to take on if a school were to enter the Big 12.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 02:38:44 +0000

@John at MrSEC @TwoSenseWorth And I think that would be better. I would much rather see the MWC, MAC, CUSA, and Sun Belt in a playoff for an FBS national title a la the FCS than watch some really mediocre bowl games that switch locations and sponsors from year to year.

The super-FBS might have a larger playoff as well and that is what’s most desirable.

By: DanHogan

DanHogan — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 01:57:21 +0000

@JansonRoberts @BamaWahoo I’m a B1G grad and I’d actually put Georgia Tech on that surprise list. The culture may fit but that’s an awful long distance for a member that really doesn’t add that much athletically. GT/B1G is no WVU/Big 12. As far as the Slive/Delaney conspiracy idea goes, I think we are far more likely to see each school (say UVa/VT) talking to their prospective new homes but neither can come together until the other has.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 01:56:25 +0000

@JansonRoberts There are cutoff points at 60, 66, and 71 for the amount of revenue invested into sports programs by universities. This is one reason, symmetry being the other, as to why the number 64 was actually kicked around so much. Your calculations and ideas are in the general direction I believe this to be headed. If the Big 10 and SEC who both have more targets that add profitability beyond the number 16 perhaps even to as many as 24, decide on 18 or even 20 schools each for additions then the Big 12 is left with no pool of viable candidates for expansion, and with such a disproportionately small part of the total revenue pie that attracting any (if there were some available) would be difficult. The PAC would find its position closely akin to the Big 12′s position per their share of the revenue versus the SEC & Big 10. At that point balance could only be maintained by a merger. In such an action members of the Big 12 who were outliers would be permitted to make other arrangements as necessary. Iowa State and West Virginia are who I have in mind.

At 60 teams there are actually 8 that could find themselves on the outside looking in. These may include B.Y.U., Nevada, Boise State, Colorado State, Louisville, Cincinnati, Connecticut, T.C.U., Baylor, Iowa State, Clemson, Miami, Wake Forest, and West Virginia. I believe that ultimately there will be either two conferences of 20 and one of 24, or one conference of 20 and two of 24. The absorption of 68 teams leaves precious few with grounds for restraint of trade lawsuits. Since the next logical cut off point for schools that actually invest in their athletic program is at the number 66, 68 satisfies most reasonable contingencies. The question then becomes who to break them up. The SEC has the most regionally profitable possibilities out of this group because Baylor or T.C.U. would deliver part of the D/FW market, West Virginia would add both a brand and a small new market, Cincinnati would add a market, and Miami/Clemson/Louisville are all strong brands and Miami is strong academically while Clemson and Louisville are profitable.

Iowa State, Wake Forest, and Miami may not bring enough to the table to be considered by the Big 10. But, if the Big 10 has not already taken Connecticut they could form a foursome that would help tie their new footprint together a bit better.

To stay at 60 will be the inclination as it is more for those included, but 64, or 68, may be safer with less acrimony.

By: DanHogan

DanHogan — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 01:48:49 +0000

@TwoSenseWorth @John As a side note, it’s always interesting to me that so many people are caught up on NIU making the BCS per that rule. The real thing that everyone should focus on is the fact that the voters put them higher than 16. That’s a reasonable debate based on their season. But, once you accept the two team conference limit (which is a bigger issue than the rule that let them in as well), a reasonably ranked #14 isn’t that far out of place in the BCS group.

At any rate, if the big-boy leagues expand by leaps and bounds, the remaining leagues won’t have enough value to get that BCS auto-bid any longer. But, my prediction is this: B1G, SEC, Big 12 each add two and ACC is left with 8 + ND. The ACC now has 8 football teams and 9 “all sports” teams. I think they add UConn and stop — they can play round-robins in football and basketball. And man, is that bball league strong! (I assume schools like FSU/Clem/VT/NC State joined BC in blocking them before, but they are gone now.) In that world, there are enough mid-major teams left to be worth a single BCS-level invite. They’d still have BSU, Cincy, ECU, Memphis, BYU, the 4 FL schools, MAC schools, etc. Even if BSU falls from grace, there will be someone left from that group who can bring value to a Dec 31 BCS bowl.

By: DanHogan

DanHogan — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 01:25:42 +0000

@John at MrSEC My concern, among many, is the long-term stability. If these conferences get really bloated, are we going to see a 20-member league split into two? I’d feel better at 16 reasonably geographic leagues with pods/divisions that are as geographic as can be.

I’d definitely push you to draw out that point a bit more in your future posts. (I push you on this and not other bloggers because, well, I’m not sure they are doing anything more than just moving around chess pieces.) I’d be particularly interesting in what your sources say university presidents, regents, and AD’s think about that 16 number

By: DanHogan

DanHogan — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 01:17:53 +0000

@AllTideUp @MoKelly1 The other key in taking all three might be the idea that they are forced to by the politics at those three schools. And, we may assume, NC is worth using three spots to get into. My uninformed gut reaction is that we’re more likely to see a more delayed rumor-mill period with the outcome being a state being split between the SEC and B1G. ie. UVa to B1G/VT to SEC or UNC/Duke to B1G / NCState to SEC. Whoever get’s the private invite first has to wait for the other in-state schools to line up their exit before any of it is public. Remember Baylor when the Pac was close to expanding? Could be a similar routine with that school getting left out being a reasonable target for the other big-boy conference.

By: JansonRoberts

JansonRoberts — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 23:42:36 +0000

Sorry I wrote the above at the airport and did not proof it. Just can’t get my head around the number 16. It won’t work.

By: JansonRoberts

JansonRoberts — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 23:36:25 +0000

How about a little out of the box thinking to end this realignment fiasco. Getting to 4 superconferences with the majic number of 16 teams per conference is almost impossible in the current landscape as I have read here on Mr.SEC.com. Especially for the PAC 12 and the Big12 for that matter. The SEC is not going to be able to get the 2 most perfect schools (in the ACC) to just send in an application for membership any time soon. I also don’t think the SEC will ever “settle” for plan B or plan C. The B1G is not going to be able to go to the 2 most perfect schools (in the ACC) that the B1G really want and get those 2 schools to leave today in this current landscape. The B1G is also not going to “settle” for plan B or Plan C. Forget about it. *Side Note…The B1G is not going to go after non AAU schols unless it is a last gasp effort to save itself…….in other words, non AAU schools are completely off the table unless yourUniversity intials are “ND”. So knowing that 16 is not a real number, could 20 be the real focus? What if the B1G and the SEC were a tandem match together for this next round? It is quite possible after the SEC renegotiation contract numbers come out that the B1G with it’s Billions in payout projections and the SEC with its Billions in payout projections could work a deal that could allow both conferences gain the markets and Universities that meet both Conference’s requirements and needs. Six to the B1G and 6 to the SEC. The PIE would go to 4 slices instead of 5 for the most part. Now for the really crazy part. The PAC 12 last year supposedly came within a few signatures of adding 4 schools from the BIG12. Alas it did not happen. Well today the PAC is a virtual island as far as having any real options off adding 2 more schools much less any higher number unless…..take 8 schools from the BIG. $ was not really the right number to begin with. Take 8 schools from the Big 12 and their GOR. There is no Big 12 at that point, and there is no GOR at that point. Now the PIE is cut in thirds, not quarters or fifths. BIG BANG and at that point why don’t the 3 Supers break off to form the now Super Duper Division. All the remaining schools not taken in the Big Bang could revamp the current Division 1 FBS league and can run it along the same lines as it is running now with the exception of forming it to have revenue sharing and a real playoff format.
As for the newly formed Super Conference Division, it now holds more leverage across the board. Scheduling could be reformed for the OOC games that might actually bring the fnas back to the stadiums. How would all the OOC schedules look if all the Super Schools could only have 1 OOC game outside the Super Conferences? I say 1 because there could be legislation that forces a school within the SUPER to play an in state rival that is not in a SUPER Conference. No more crazy matchups in the Bowls. No more FCS scheduling. No more expansion dread. Premium Payout to Premium Performance. Maybe 60 total leaaves too many power schools out? make it 22 per conference or 24. Surely 72 teams would get everyone that really can perform into the equation. BUT then there is the LHN. Well, there is always a number. 15 million per year? well, the NEW TV contract for the PAC at 20 or 22 or whatever number of schools would just happen to call that 15 million that LHN is getting from ESPN and raises it by another 10 million. But what about ND? Well, there is always a number. 15 million per year? Well it just so happens that the B1G payout will that 15 million for the ND TV contract and raises it another 10 or 20 million. Nah, it would never work.

By: SpencerMoore

SpencerMoore — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:55:15 +0000

@BostonGeorge @Quidam65 Prove that UNC and Duke are “joined at he hip” in anything but the dated minds of Dick Vitale and other ACC basketball lovers. One is private one is public. Their are no ties that can’t be broken. If anything, UNC and NC State departing from one another would get politicos in Carolina all bothered.

By: SpencerMoore

SpencerMoore — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:52:27 +0000

@Quidam65 @Sooner_Stampede You don’t “know” Mizzou wanted in the Big 10. Prove it. The governor made a comment. Media and bloggers speculated. Nothing else. And it was OUs presidents’ desperate plea to get into the Pac12 that actually made Mizzou leave.

By: ChaseTheTrainWarren

ChaseTheTrainWarren — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 18:48:30 +0000

@John at MrSEC @BostonGeorge @BKarchitect John you are the man

By: John at MrSEC

John at MrSEC — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 17:44:16 +0000

@BostonGeorge @BKarchitect

Okay.

I’ll admit it… I skewed the data JUST to make UConn look bad. In fact, I set out to talk to as many people in the college sports industry as possible, write about as many schools as possible in as many long stories as possible… all to skew the data against UConn.

Mu-whaahahahahaha!

If I were you, I’d stop coming here and reading a site that’s clearly so anti-UConn.

John

By: John at MrSEC

John at MrSEC — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 17:40:04 +0000

@BostonGeorge @BKarchitect

Okay.

I’ll admit it… I skewed the data JUST to make UConn look bad. In fact, I set out to talk to as many people in college sports industry as possible, write about as many stories and schools as possible… all to skew the data to be anti-UConn.

If I were you, I’d stop coming here and reading a site that clearly so anti-UConn.

John

By: BostonGeorge

BostonGeorge — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 17:26:11 +0000

@BKarchitect @John at MrSEC

Exactly. UConn doesn’t use questionable accounting practices and likes to separate their medical research expenditures from their non medical research expenditures. This does not mean they are 2 separate entities, however. The medical and University are still the University of Connecticut and should be added. Just about every other school that has a medical research expenditure adds it to their University research expenditure. I was simply pointing that out to MrSEC to make his numbers more accurate but ti seems he would rather overlook this part.

And your TV numbers are misleading for Bc and UConn whether you want to admit it or not. Most readers of this site probably are not familiar with the tv markets and demographics in New England so you can get away with framing the data the way you decided. The fact is BC would not be carried across the entire state of Mass. They would be covered in the Boston market and eastern Mass but central and Western Mass they would not get into many households. I would guess that BC would get into about 20-40% of households in Mass. UConn on the other hand would get close to 100% penetration in CT, most likely 65-80% of all households in CT.

You then ask why B1G would have taken Rutgers and MD over UConn. That is quite simple and you answered it in this piece and last piece…. TV numbers. NJ is one of the most populated states and gives entry into NYC along with Philly. Rutgers alone doesnt give the B1G NYC however. Not many people in NYC car all that much about Rutgers but if they are combined wtih UConn, ND, or Cuse that would lockdown the NYC market for the B1G. UConn is the most popular college in NYC when you combine football with basketball otherwise it is Rutgers, ND, Penn St then UConn when talking only football.

MD is another state that is more populated than CT. They also have reach into the DC market which is great for the BTN. Combine that with a reach into Philly also and in a swift calculated move Delaney just poached an ACC school with the richest media market. He also doubled down on the Philly market shoring that up by adding both Rutgers and MD.

Delaney is extremely intelligent. Right now he really wants UVA because that will give him the entire DC market and NOVA along with a lot of Virginia. Which is why UConn or BC seem like logical choices, with UConn being a better fit. IF Delaney takes UVA and UCOnn he not only dominates the DC market but will dominate the NYC Market as well along with having reach into the Boston market because UConn does have a reach that far since their brand is so strong in New England with alumni based in Boston and other parts of Mass. BC doesnt give the B1G an opportunity to capture the NYC market or even the entire state of Mass. UConn not only gives you the entire state of CT but a larger dominating share of NYC (when combined with Rutgers, Penn St) but also parts o Mass and the other large city, Boston, in New England. Rutgers and MD are also flagship AAU schools and UConn is on its way to being voted into the AAU in the near future.

UNC is probably the 2nd choice of Delaney but I doubt the SEC allows Delaney to come into the south and poach UNC. UNC also doesnt view themselves as a nothern school and would much rather align themselves with a southern conference.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 06:12:33 +0000

@John at MrSEC @buddha22 @John @Quidam65 @RonnyMexico That is exactly why Florida State, Clemson, Louisville, Miami, and Georgia Tech should not be dismissed out of hand for the SEC. It’s very true that we seek new markets first. If the Big 10 and SEC move to 18 a piece, or more, the eventual outcome of the economic math will necessitate further movement. In order to reestablish a balance it is conceivable that the PAC and Big 12 could come to some kind of agreement for either a partial or complete merger.

Cincinnati then becomes a market to be developed, West Virginia a market to be acquired, and the paradigm shifts once again to one of market saturation as opposed to just market addition.

The SEC and Big 10 would then only add value by taking content additions within their existing footprints, but not only to add to the 1st and 2nd tier revenue stream, but to gain leverage as you so aptly pointed out.

By: John at MrSEC

John at MrSEC — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 05:16:17 +0000

@buddha22 @John @Quidam65 @RonnyMexico

Well, it’s not just those two states. There are three parts to the TV revenue equation:

1. Brand value — This would mean grabbing big name schools that cause national viewers to tune into their games… which would please network partners.

2. Reach — This means cable households on a state-by-state or region-to-region basis and big television markets… the latter of which would also please network partners.

3. Content — This is why some leagues might fly right past the imaginary 16-school barrier. Think of it this way. There are only about 60-70 power conference teams out there to drive numbers. If Conference X owns 20 of those schools, it stands to reason that Conference X will make about 30% of the total TV revenue simply by owning all those schools and their games. If, for example, the Big Ten had 22 schools while the SEC had 16, the Pac-12, the Big 12 grew to 14 and the ACC became a second-class league as has happened to the Big East… the Big Ten would own 35% of the power conference teams in America. In that imaginary scenario, think the networks wouldn’t be fighting to grab all the Big Ten content? With one contract they could grab the right to more than a third of the high-end college football content available.

At MrSEC, we’re not in favor of further expansion anywhere and we’re not stating that leagues will or should go to 18, 20 or 100 schools. We’re simply pointing out the fact that it’s a myth to think the landscape will eventually feature only four 16-school leagues. If there’s money on the table, some league will zip past 16 to grab it.

Thanks for reading the site,
John

By: USCTraveler

USCTraveler — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 04:10:49 +0000

@Quidam65 @John at MrSEC Adding Duke and UNC together is hugely valuable for either the BIG or the SEC, since both have conference networks and need quality programming. B-ball is going to be a big part of the programming, and besides marquee matchups like Duke-UNC, Duke-IU or Duke-UK (all of which will enhance Tier 1 value), Duke-Vandy, Duke-Wiscy, etc are all valuable for the BTN or SEC net.

Duke is the exception to most realignment rules. Their hoops brand, academic standing and relationship with UNC make them very valuable even with weak (although improving) football and duplicating the NC market with UNC.

By: USCTraveler

USCTraveler — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 03:58:10 +0000

@ChrisWynes If you think the ACC is going to outlast the B12 you should re-read John’s articles on realignment because you are missing the main point.

Schools making less money in less secure conferences are being pulled towards conferences where they can make more money and not have to worry about long-term security.

Take a step back and look at the big picture. There were 6 power conferences containing 60-some teams at the start of the BCS era.

There are now 5 conferences (with the ACC on shaky ground) splitting the money five ways instead of six. Next stop is four power conferences.

Money, stability and to some extent prestige has been driving this consolidation ever since Miami went to the ACC.
Things have accelerated lately because of the BTN, PAC Net and SEC net needing more markets, the upcoming playoffs and because of the big Tier 1 and 2 deals the Big 4 have signed.

The ACC is in trouble because it’s on the wrong end of the equation.
ACC schools make fewer $$$ than the rest of the BIG 4 and they are the only ones without a GOR.

On top of that, the BIG and SEC need more markets for their networks and are both at 14- an awkward number for scheduling. 16 is much better.

Add all of those factors work together in a way that is very bad news for the ACC. It’s a matter of when, not if IMO.

The ACC football schools make too few $$$ in comparison to their in-state SEC rivals (and nearby SEC teams like Bama). That $$$ difference is going to show up on the field eventually. (In GT’s case, it already has.)

FSU might have the B12 as their 3rd choice, and will thoroughly exhaust every means to try to get into the BIG and SEC, but at some point they will leave.
There’s a reason they voted (along with MD) against the ACC exit fee being raised.

None of this will happen as fast as people want to believe, but the death of the ACC as a viable football conference will happen.

With the $$$ difference involved, no GOR in place and motivated predators (Delaney, Slive, Bowlsby), it’s just a matter of time.

By: JRsec

JRsec — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 03:38:35 +0000

If I’m Swafford, I would speak with Virginia Tech and North Carolina State about waiving the exit fee if they wished to leave for the SEC. Now I have 4-6 slots with which to expand my conference. I offer (ESPN property) Texas the same deal that Notre Dame received. Then I offer Baylor, Rice, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State, and Tulane invitations to the ACC. Now I have a conference that has improved athletically, expanded my footprint significantly, clipped the wings of Jim Delany for future expansion, and re-invigorated the academics of the ACC leaving Louisville as the only questionable academic addition. If the SEC desired further expansion beyond 16 they could determine if there was enough value in adding two of Oklahoma State, Kansas State, West Virginia, Texas Tech, or Cincinnati.

Delany’s options would be Connecticut and either Colorado State or Brigham Young, in other words a non starter. The BTN is then hamstrung and their conference is stuck at 14 with those two powerhouse market favorites of Rutgers and Maryland.

The PAC could choose to pick up the remainder of Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Texas Tech, and Cincinnati and add them to two of Nevada, San Diego State, Houston, Brigham Young, Boise State and S.M.U. if they truly wanted sixteen.

The SEC and ACC could then partner in the Champs Bowl and for the sake of protecting rivalries agree to a competition weekend during the season.. ESPN would pony up to keep their properties competitively in the ACC and to keep their best stock out of Fox’s hands.

After all, conference realignment is going to morph into network wars before this is over with and that is likely to change the direction of what has been assumed heretofore. But we will see shortly how this plays out.

By: JansonRoberts

JansonRoberts — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 03:38:25 +0000

@BamaWahoo @buddha22 @John @Quidam65
Maybe you’re right, but I see it completely opposite. I think that whole block is tied together, UVA, VT, UNC, Duke and NCST. Not tied together in the sense that they all have to go to the same conference, but rather tied together in any exodus from the ACC. All 5 of these schools will have to be secure in a new home within the B1G and SEC collectively. Virginia legislators aren’t going to allow UVA to leave the ACC without VT having the same level of security within a premium conference. Maybe I am wrong in my thinking. While the B1G and SEC are looking at new markets with big cable tv numbers, those NC schools, have a strong slant for more than just football dollars.

By: JansonRoberts

JansonRoberts — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 03:10:25 +0000

Reading into all this realignment, I can’t see the B1G or the SEC being able stay at 16 teams. I know it is the magical number that most articles refer to time and time again in the “Superconference” ideal. But neither are going to be able add just 2 teams from the ACC of their choosing given the current landscape of that conference. UVA is not leaving as long as VT and UNC remain in the ACC. VT ditto. UNC ditto on UVA, Duke and NCST. 5 teams there in the block that are really a package deal. Not a package together per say. But a package deal in that all 5 are going to have a new home in one of the 2 money maker conferences. I have seen a few perdictions of VT or NCST going to the Big 12. Aint going to happen. Too far and not enough stability. Yes, there is the GOR yadda yadda yadda. Still not a great place to be from these particular school’s view point. If the Virginia schools and the North Carolina schools leave the ACC, it will probably be collectively, not all to 1 conference, but all to one of the two power conferences.

By: BamaWahoo

BamaWahoo — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 02:58:48 +0000

@buddha22 @John @Quidam65 @RonnyMexico You’d also have to figure in the effect that the ACC being eliminated as a competitor would have. If major conferences go from 5 to 4 then the 4 have more leverage in tv deals because they control more inventory, and get larger shares of the playoff/bowl pie too. In addition to access to two large states and the Charlotte and DC markets. That said, I’m really hoping against hope that somehow we end up w/ UVA and UNC in the SEC. I don’t see why Duke would have to be tied to UNC and don’t believe it’s the case. Two weeks ago people were certain that UVA and UNC were joined at the hip (the oldest rivalry in the South and 4th most played in the country in football). It makes more sense to me that the SEC would go after the 2 flagship schools in the 2 remaining states of the south that the SEC doesn’t have. I hope.