Realignment talk not going away

Laxtonto · May 15, 2023

Evil Bill Obrien · May 15, 2023

6 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

Trojan Man · May 15, 2023

2 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

Either they talked to nine because 1-8 said no, or they can't get people to commit to enough inventory. Having games spread out all over the guide is almost as bad as going only streaming.

My guess is they get a game a week on linear, that is always Oregon vs someone else.

That has to be a real point of contention in Pac 12 media deal negotiations. Every school that isn't Oregon or Washington should be insisting on a guaranteed minimum amount of linear appearances per team per season to make sure the Ducks/Huskies don't get every single linear window while everyone else is 100% streaming. The 4C schools have the leverage to push for this because the Big 12 will have more than one linear window per week plus the Big 12's windows won't be dominated by a couple teams like the Pac 12's could be.

1 hour ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

So we could be very close to the ACC exit number, if the SEC is willing to take a second public in North Carolina State and VT. Would the SEC, B1G, Big 12 make these deals behind closed doors with the intentions of then breaking away from the rest of the NCAA in football?

1. UVA - SEC/B1G

2. VT - SEC

3. NC - SEC/B1G

4. NC St - SEC

5. Clemson - SEC

6. FSU - SEC

7. Georgia Tech - B1G

8. Miami - B1G

9. Notre Dame - B1G

*10. Louisville - Big 12

*11. Pitt - Big 12

*(the money would be just as good in the Big 12 as the ACC)

One more and the ACC no longer exists. Duke? Syracuse to the Big 12?

Notre Dame doesn't get a vote on stuff like this because they're only partial members, though the ACC collapsing would make it easier for them to join the B1G. IIRC they would still owe a lot of money to the ACC if they join any other conference before the GOR expires.

gatormarc · May 15, 2023

12 minutes ago, Trojan Man said:

Notre Dame doesn't get a vote on stuff like this because they're only partial members, though the ACC collapsing would make it easier for them to join the B1G. IIRC they would still owe a lot of money to the ACC if they join any other conference before the GOR expires.

It's not clear to me whether they have a vote or not. The Notre Dame section only states that they can't vote if an issue specifically relates to football.

Quote

Representatives of the University of Notre Dame serving on the Board, the Executive Committee or other Committees shall recuse themselves from voting on or participating in – and if asked shall leave the room during – the discussion of matters specifically relating to football, including media and broadcast rights relating to football, and such representatives shall not be considered in determining whether a quorum is present for any such vote.

Nothing in the board voting requirements excludes Notre Dame that I can find.

Sandbagging Steve · May 16, 2023

6 minutes ago, gatormarc said:

It's not clear to me whether they have a vote or not. The Notre Dame section only states that they can't vote if an issue specifically relates to football.

Nothing in the board voting requirements excludes Notre Dame that I can find.

It makes no sense that an entity would have no voting power over its own future. As you said, this isn't just a football issue. Notre Dame plays sports in the ACC other than football. They would almost certainly have voting power in those sports, which gives them voting power in this process. If they signed that away, heads need to roll in South Bend. I have a hard time believing that to be the case.

FartingDreamer · May 16, 2023

Having the Backyard Brawl (Pitt vs WVU) and the Holy War (BYU vs Utah) in the conference would be epic as far as bitter rivalries go.

closetohumping · May 16, 2023

https://floridastate.rivals.com/news/report-fsu-in-magnificent-7-group-exploring-way-out-of-acc-gor-agreement

CustersDoctor · May 16, 2023

1 hour ago, Trojan Man said:

That has to be a real point of contention in Pac 12 media deal negotiations. Every school that isn't Oregon or Washington should be insisting on a guaranteed minimum amount of linear appearances per team per season to make sure the Ducks/Huskies don't get every single linear window while everyone else is 100% streaming. The 4C schools have the leverage to push for this because the Big 12 will have more than one linear window per week plus the Big 12's windows won't be dominated by a couple teams like the Pac 12's could be.

Every conference TV deal requires that each member school gets a set minimum of good time slot games. That's why ESPN & Fox dropped out of bidding for PAC10 content. BECAUSE, If the PAC10 collapses and the 4 corners come to the Big12 and possibly OUW, ESPN & FOX get the content of those teams because they already own the Big12 content. If this happens ESPN & Fox get the gravy of the PAC10 without having to carry the 4 ratings disaster schools (Cal, Stanford, OSt &WSt).

Sandbagging Steve · May 16, 2023

The Ross Dellenger article stands out in a world of deceit and manipulation as the best-written word on the subject for probably the last six months. I didn't see it posted, but it's worth another paste even if it has been posted here.

But before I post it, here's a new P5 map that I like

Dellenger's SI article

https://www.si.com/college/2023/05/15/college-football-expansion-whats-next-power-5-conferences

Spoiler

‘The Next Wave Is Coming’: Expansion, Realignment and What’s at Stake for Power 5 Conferences

How do the Big 12, Pac-12 and ACC keep up while generating millions less than the SEC and Big Ten? Some believe all three of them cannot coexist successfully.

ROSS DELLENGER
13 HOURS AGO

Two weeks ago, inside a lavish resort in suburban Phoenix, down a long hallway and two flights of stairs, executives from two conferences inched closer to further altering the landscape of college sports.

They talked about expansion.

Often sparring publicly with one another, the two sets of league administrators separately met behind closed doors like a pair of boxers secretly preparing for the big fight against each other.

In one corner was the Pac-12, an array of broad-based universities, betrayed by their Los Angeles defectors and now at the mercy of media networks to prevent further departures.

In the other corner is the Big 12, an expanding group of universities, spanning Utah to Florida, with a brash commissioner whose aggressive nature makes him a territorial threat to the West.

The juxtaposition of the scene was fascinating—a mere 20 feet of carpet separating the two meetings within a labyrinth of convention space at the Hyatt Regency Gainey Ranch.

Within the meeting rooms, each league’s strategy unfolded ahead of their proverbial territorial battle. Just paces from the Pac-12’s gathering, Big 12 leaders discussed a list of expansion targets, four of them residing in the Pac-12: Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State and Utah.

Other targets are from a variety of leagues: San Diego State and UNLV from the Mountain West; UConn, which is independent in football and in the Big East in basketball; and Memphis, from the American. There are others, too, such as Colorado State, SMU and Fresno, but they seem further down the pecking order.

The Pac-12, meanwhile, discussed its own expansion possibilities: San Diego State and SMU.

“It could be an active summer,” says one administrator with knowledge of the discussions.

The near-yearlong realignment buzz surrounding these two conferences—will Pac-12 members defect to the Big 12?—is entering what appears to be its final chapter. Over the next 30 to 60 days more clarity is expected as the Pac-12’s new television deal is finalized.

But this is a small piece of a larger puzzle.

The Big 12-versus-Pac 12 territorial fight is one battle in a realignment war that has waged for decades. While the most recent moves were about the consolidation of football’s most valuable brands—Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC, and USC and UCLA to the Big Ten—the next wave is about survival.

How do the Big 12, Pac-12 and ACC keep up competitively while generating millions less than college football’s two behemoths?

Some believe all three of them cannot coexist successfully.

“The big next issue is, can we keep the perception of college athletics as involving all of us?” asks Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick. “Or, does the Big Ten and SEC become college athletics in terms of popular perception, and, if they do, how does that influence shape the future of college athletics?”

The ACC

This week in Amelia Island, administrators from the ACC gather for their own spring meetings.

More frank discussions are expected about the growing revenue gap between it and the SEC/Big Ten. Handcuffed by an ESPN broadcasting contract and grant-of-rights that extends another 13 years, ACC schools could find themselves more than $30 million behind the SEC and Big Ten in annual distribution by the time 2026 arrives.

They are not alone, as the data and analytics company Navigate showed in projections last year.

While the Pac-12 and Big 12 fight their western expansion battle, the ACC is, in many ways, fighting internally.

A subset of seven schools in the 14-member conference has coalesced over what many of them describe as an untenable situation. Officials from the seven schools, led by Florida State and Clemson, have met a handful of times over the past several months, with their lawyers examining the grant-of-rights to determine just how unbreakable it is.

Per the grant-of-rights, each ACC school gives ownership of its broadcasting rights to the league in a deal with ESPN that runs through 2036. If a school breaks the deal, the ACC will continue to own the TV rights of any of that school’s home games, according to the contract.

The ACC’s options are quite limited, both for the group of seven and the league as a whole.

1. Seek additional revenue from ESPN. This is a long shot given the network’s current situation. ESPN, in the midst of a wave of personnel cuts, is also negotiating deals with UFC/WWE, the NBA and Pac-12. While commissioner Jim Phillips and a few ACC presidents met recently with the network over this issue, no significant cash infusion appears imminent.

2. Secede from the league. Some of the schools, possibly the most frustrated lot such as FSU and Clemson, could pay the $120 million exit fee and hope they can break a grant-of-rights agreement that most attorneys—though maybe not their own—say is airtight. That then leaves a very big question: Where do they go? The SEC and Big Ten seem quite comfortable with their current membership, but potential western realignment could trigger them to expand more.

3. Create another league. If the seven agree to dissolve the current grant-of-rights agreement (we don’t know yet if this is a possibility), they may add a couple of more schools and begin their own association in hopes of it being more lucrative. This comes with its own issues, of course. You’d need a broadcast partner or private equity to fund such an endeavor. And, as one official asks, “Will it really be that much more lucrative?”

Basically, there are no easy answers.

No one seems to really be blaming the current commissioner, Phillips. The lengthy ESPN contract was signed by his predecessor and has put the conference at a disadvantage to the Big Ten and SEC, which signed new deals somewhat recently for more heftier payouts.

“It’s not a Jim Phillips thing,” says one high-ranking ACC official. “It’s a revenue thing.”

A fourth option for the league will be further explored this week at meetings: changing the revenue distribution model to a more merit-based system. Instead of equally distributing revenue, this system would award more dollars to those programs excelling on the field.

Administrators have spent the last couple of months discussing this festering issue. It has divided a conference that is less like-minded than most leagues in the country: big football revenue-generators like Florida State, Clemson, Miami and even North Carolina grouped with the likes of Boston College, Syracuse and Wake Forest.

While a vote on a revenue distribution model isn’t expected this week, proposals are likely to be explored as university presidents are now examining the issue.

During a Board of Trustees meeting in February, FSU athletic director Michael Alford seemed to publicly fire a warning shot at the rest of the conference: Change the revenue distribution model or else.

“At the end of the day for Florida State to compete nationally, something has to change going forward,” Alford told his board in a wide-ranging presentation in which he suggested that FSU brings in 15% of ACC media rights value but receives only 7% in distribution.

However, any change in the distribution model falls short of significantly closing the gap between the SEC and Big Ten. In the most successful year under a merit-based model, a school might receive an extra $5 million, one administrator estimates.

An unequal distribution model can also impact the culture of a conference. It can sow divisiveness within a league, says one athletic director from outside the ACC.

“It won’t stop there,” the AD says. “This will be the beginning of the end.”

The Big 12 and Pac-12

Back to that fight out West.

The Pac-12-Big 12 realignment battle will either cause small ripples across the national landscape (this happens if the Pac-12 remains intact), or trigger a tidal wave of change stretching from coast to coast (this happens if the Pac-12 has more defections).

It all hinges on the viability of the Pac-12’s new broadcasting contract, both from a financial and visibility perspective (sure, the money could be better or the same as the Big 12, but what if most of the games are on streaming?). The league is in the 10th month of negotiations. And believable details from those negotiations have been scarce.

The Pac-12’s potential instability has been the single most speculated subject across the college sports landscape over the past few months. Through it all, the conference has publicly shown confidence in the face of assumptions of its impending doom.

One experienced executive describes the entire situation as the most “perplexing” he’s ever witnessed in media rights negotiations.

Factions have formed.

Those inside the Big 12, gunning for Pac-12 defections, believe the league is cooked. Those in the Pac-12, wanting to protect its 10 schools, believe the league will arrive at a strong-enough deal coinciding with a short grant-of-rights (four to six years). And then there is the media, which has produced varying reports of the situation, even sometimes sparring with one another over those reports.

One thing is certain: The Pac-12 plans to expand by adding San Diego State and maybe SMU coinciding with its completion of a new TV deal. But there is a deadline. To start play in 2024, San Diego State owes the Mountain West an exit fee of about $17 million. That triples in cost July 1, a reason for a quasi-deadline to the situation.

One athletic administrator offers his own prediction on the outcome: “I think the highest odds—and it may not be more than 50%—is that the Pac-12 salvages something in the short term to keep it together and it is Dead Man Walking for four years, with the Big Ten and Big 12 sitting there.”

But what if it doesn’t salvage something?

Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark is aggressively pursuing expansion targets in an attempt to reach 14 or 16 members. Top priority are the Arizona schools, Colorado and Utah, but there are plenty of other potential replacements if the Pac-12 programs choose to stay.

Though San Diego State seems bound for the Pac-12—it is their preference—Yormark has held conversations with the school’s leadership about being the Big 12’s only program in the Pacific Time Zone. UConn, the reigning men’s basketball champions, is a play for a foothold in the Northeast as well as adding another basketball powerhouse to what currently is the best hoops league in the country. And of Memphis, the Tigers finished as a finalist the last time the Big 12 expanded.

Yormark’s interest in UNLV seems like a calculated maneuver. Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff, a former casino executive who resides in Las Vegas, is slowly shifting the conference’s hub to Sin City. In an interesting wrinkle, could Kliavkoff’s targeting of SMU be a similar play? SMU is located in the Big 12’s own hub city of Dallas.

The Big 12’s expansion decisions could be solidified in a matter of weeks. Conference administrators meet at the end of the month in West Virginia, including school presidents.

The Big Ten and SEC

This past winter, Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren made a push to expand again, this time targeting Washington and Oregon as a pair of West Coast neighbors to go along with new additions USC and UCLA.

To expand again, more broadcasting dollars (at least $200 million a year) were needed to assure that school distribution remained whole. The most likely broadcasting dollars would come from ESPN or streamers Amazon and Apple. Neither happened.

“It was ‘Show me the money!’ and there wasn’t any money,” says one Big Ten administrator.

Money aside, many of the league’s athletic directors and presidents did not have the appetite for further expansion—and still do not. As one recently told Sports Illustrated, “We are done.” But will that change if the Pac-12 begins to crumble? Will there be any new money, potentially from Big Ten partner Fox or even ESPN?

If there are defectors in the Pac-12 South to the Big 12, the Big Ten could add Pac-12 north schools like Washington and Oregon, at that point desperate for a home, at likely a discount (they’d almost certainly accept a partial distribution rate). And if the Big Ten again expands, what then does that mean for the SEC, which has long fielded interest from ACC schools?

There’s been a long history of interest from the SEC in certain ACC powers as well. In fact, in 1990, when the league voted to expand, officials explored a variety of targets, seriously vetting Florida State before settling on South Carolina and Arkansas. Years later, then coach Bobby Bowden and several athletic administrators involved in the process revealed they turned down an invitation.

Three decades later, the Seminoles are eyeing an exit path, but a route to the SEC isn’t easy. There is little appetite from risk-averse league presidents to entangle themselves in a potentially sticky legal situation over a grant-of-rights. In another note, the league already has a foothold in Florida with the Gators (and as for Clemson, the SEC is already in South Carolina with the Gamecocks). For the SEC, the more attractive options may be schools in new states like North Carolina and Virginia.

For now, the SEC door feels closed, and the Big Ten door seems only slightly ajar. But as is the case with conference realignment, the tide changes quickly.

Everyone is watching the West.

The Pac-12 and Big 12 enter the biggest realignment battle in years, a fight that could expedite what many believe is an inevitability: the football powers consolidating for what seems to be a semiprofessional future model.

“The next wave is coming,” says one Power 5 university president. “It’s not going to stay still. It’s just a matter of when.”

Texas Wahoo · May 16, 2023

7 minutes ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

The Ross Dellenger article stands out in a world of deceit and manipulation as the best-written word on the subject for probably the last six months. I didn't see it posted, but it's worth another paste even if it has been posted here.

But before I post it, here's a new P5 map that I like

Dellenger's SI article

https://www.si.com/college/2023/05/15/college-football-expansion-whats-next-power-5-conferences

Reveal hidden contents

‘The Next Wave Is Coming’: Expansion, Realignment and What’s at Stake for Power 5 Conferences

How do the Big 12, Pac-12 and ACC keep up while generating millions less than the SEC and Big Ten? Some believe all three of them cannot coexist successfully.

ROSS DELLENGER

13 HOURS AGO

Two weeks ago, inside a lavish resort in suburban Phoenix, down a long hallway and two flights of stairs, executives from two conferences inched closer to further altering the landscape of college sports.

They talked about expansion.

Often sparring publicly with one another, the two sets of league administrators separately met behind closed doors like a pair of boxers secretly preparing for the big fight against each other.

In one corner was the Pac-12, an array of broad-based universities, betrayed by their Los Angeles defectors and now at the mercy of media networks to prevent further departures.

In the other corner is the Big 12, an expanding group of universities, spanning Utah to Florida, with a brash commissioner whose aggressive nature makes him a territorial threat to the West.

The juxtaposition of the scene was fascinating—a mere 20 feet of carpet separating the two meetings within a labyrinth of convention space at the Hyatt Regency Gainey Ranch.

Within the meeting rooms, each league’s strategy unfolded ahead of their proverbial territorial battle. Just paces from the Pac-12’s gathering, Big 12 leaders discussed a list of expansion targets, four of them residing in the Pac-12: Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State and Utah.

Other targets are from a variety of leagues: San Diego State and UNLV from the Mountain West; UConn, which is independent in football and in the Big East in basketball; and Memphis, from the American. There are others, too, such as Colorado State, SMU and Fresno, but they seem further down the pecking order.

The Pac-12, meanwhile, discussed its own expansion possibilities: San Diego State and SMU.

“It could be an active summer,” says one administrator with knowledge of the discussions.

The near-yearlong realignment buzz surrounding these two conferences—will Pac-12 members defect to the Big 12?—is entering what appears to be its final chapter. Over the next 30 to 60 days more clarity is expected as the Pac-12’s new television deal is finalized.

But this is a small piece of a larger puzzle.

The Big 12-versus-Pac 12 territorial fight is one battle in a realignment war that has waged for decades. While the most recent moves were about the consolidation of football’s most valuable brands—Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC, and USC and UCLA to the Big Ten—the next wave is about survival.

How do the Big 12, Pac-12 and ACC keep up competitively while generating millions less than college football’s two behemoths?

Some believe all three of them cannot coexist successfully.

“The big next issue is, can we keep the perception of college athletics as involving all of us?” asks Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick. “Or, does the Big Ten and SEC become college athletics in terms of popular perception, and, if they do, how does that influence shape the future of college athletics?”

The ACC

This week in Amelia Island, administrators from the ACC gather for their own spring meetings.

More frank discussions are expected about the growing revenue gap between it and the SEC/Big Ten. Handcuffed by an ESPN broadcasting contract and grant-of-rights that extends another 13 years, ACC schools could find themselves more than $30 million behind the SEC and Big Ten in annual distribution by the time 2026 arrives.

They are not alone, as the data and analytics company Navigate showed in projections last year.

While the Pac-12 and Big 12 fight their western expansion battle, the ACC is, in many ways, fighting internally.

A subset of seven schools in the 14-member conference has coalesced over what many of them describe as an untenable situation. Officials from the seven schools, led by Florida State and Clemson, have met a handful of times over the past several months, with their lawyers examining the grant-of-rights to determine just how unbreakable it is.

Per the grant-of-rights, each ACC school gives ownership of its broadcasting rights to the league in a deal with ESPN that runs through 2036. If a school breaks the deal, the ACC will continue to own the TV rights of any of that school’s home games, according to the contract.

The ACC’s options are quite limited, both for the group of seven and the league as a whole.

1. Seek additional revenue from ESPN. This is a long shot given the network’s current situation. ESPN, in the midst of a wave of personnel cuts, is also negotiating deals with UFC/WWE, the NBA and Pac-12. While commissioner Jim Phillips and a few ACC presidents met recently with the network over this issue, no significant cash infusion appears imminent.

2. Secede from the league. Some of the schools, possibly the most frustrated lot such as FSU and Clemson, could pay the $120 million exit fee and hope they can break a grant-of-rights agreement that most attorneys—though maybe not their own—say is airtight. That then leaves a very big question: Where do they go? The SEC and Big Ten seem quite comfortable with their current membership, but potential western realignment could trigger them to expand more.

3. Create another league. If the seven agree to dissolve the current grant-of-rights agreement (we don’t know yet if this is a possibility), they may add a couple of more schools and begin their own association in hopes of it being more lucrative. This comes with its own issues, of course. You’d need a broadcast partner or private equity to fund such an endeavor. And, as one official asks, “Will it really be that much more lucrative?”

Basically, there are no easy answers.

No one seems to really be blaming the current commissioner, Phillips. The lengthy ESPN contract was signed by his predecessor and has put the conference at a disadvantage to the Big Ten and SEC, which signed new deals somewhat recently for more heftier payouts.

“It’s not a Jim Phillips thing,” says one high-ranking ACC official. “It’s a revenue thing.”

A fourth option for the league will be further explored this week at meetings: changing the revenue distribution model to a more merit-based system. Instead of equally distributing revenue, this system would award more dollars to those programs excelling on the field.

Administrators have spent the last couple of months discussing this festering issue. It has divided a conference that is less like-minded than most leagues in the country: big football revenue-generators like Florida State, Clemson, Miami and even North Carolina grouped with the likes of Boston College, Syracuse and Wake Forest.

While a vote on a revenue distribution model isn’t expected this week, proposals are likely to be explored as university presidents are now examining the issue.

During a Board of Trustees meeting in February, FSU athletic director Michael Alford seemed to publicly fire a warning shot at the rest of the conference: Change the revenue distribution model or else.

“At the end of the day for Florida State to compete nationally, something has to change going forward,” Alford told his board in a wide-ranging presentation in which he suggested that FSU brings in 15% of ACC media rights value but receives only 7% in distribution.

However, any change in the distribution model falls short of significantly closing the gap between the SEC and Big Ten. In the most successful year under a merit-based model, a school might receive an extra $5 million, one administrator estimates.

An unequal distribution model can also impact the culture of a conference. It can sow divisiveness within a league, says one athletic director from outside the ACC.

“It won’t stop there,” the AD says. “This will be the beginning of the end.”

The Big 12 and Pac-12

Back to that fight out West.

The Pac-12-Big 12 realignment battle will either cause small ripples across the national landscape (this happens if the Pac-12 remains intact), or trigger a tidal wave of change stretching from coast to coast (this happens if the Pac-12 has more defections).

It all hinges on the viability of the Pac-12’s new broadcasting contract, both from a financial and visibility perspective (sure, the money could be better or the same as the Big 12, but what if most of the games are on streaming?). The league is in the 10th month of negotiations. And believable details from those negotiations have been scarce.

The Pac-12’s potential instability has been the single most speculated subject across the college sports landscape over the past few months. Through it all, the conference has publicly shown confidence in the face of assumptions of its impending doom.

One experienced executive describes the entire situation as the most “perplexing” he’s ever witnessed in media rights negotiations.

Factions have formed.

Those inside the Big 12, gunning for Pac-12 defections, believe the league is cooked. Those in the Pac-12, wanting to protect its 10 schools, believe the league will arrive at a strong-enough deal coinciding with a short grant-of-rights (four to six years). And then there is the media, which has produced varying reports of the situation, even sometimes sparring with one another over those reports.

One thing is certain: The Pac-12 plans to expand by adding San Diego State and maybe SMU coinciding with its completion of a new TV deal. But there is a deadline. To start play in 2024, San Diego State owes the Mountain West an exit fee of about $17 million. That triples in cost July 1, a reason for a quasi-deadline to the situation.

One athletic administrator offers his own prediction on the outcome: “I think the highest odds—and it may not be more than 50%—is that the Pac-12 salvages something in the short term to keep it together and it is Dead Man Walking for four years, with the Big Ten and Big 12 sitting there.”

But what if it doesn’t salvage something?

Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark is aggressively pursuing expansion targets in an attempt to reach 14 or 16 members. Top priority are the Arizona schools, Colorado and Utah, but there are plenty of other potential replacements if the Pac-12 programs choose to stay.

Though San Diego State seems bound for the Pac-12—it is their preference—Yormark has held conversations with the school’s leadership about being the Big 12’s only program in the Pacific Time Zone. UConn, the reigning men’s basketball champions, is a play for a foothold in the Northeast as well as adding another basketball powerhouse to what currently is the best hoops league in the country. And of Memphis, the Tigers finished as a finalist the last time the Big 12 expanded.

Yormark’s interest in UNLV seems like a calculated maneuver. Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff, a former casino executive who resides in Las Vegas, is slowly shifting the conference’s hub to Sin City. In an interesting wrinkle, could Kliavkoff’s targeting of SMU be a similar play? SMU is located in the Big 12’s own hub city of Dallas.

The Big 12’s expansion decisions could be solidified in a matter of weeks. Conference administrators meet at the end of the month in West Virginia, including school presidents.

The Big Ten and SEC

This past winter, Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren made a push to expand again, this time targeting Washington and Oregon as a pair of West Coast neighbors to go along with new additions USC and UCLA.

To expand again, more broadcasting dollars (at least $200 million a year) were needed to assure that school distribution remained whole. The most likely broadcasting dollars would come from ESPN or streamers Amazon and Apple. Neither happened.

“It was ‘Show me the money!’ and there wasn’t any money,” says one Big Ten administrator.

Money aside, many of the league’s athletic directors and presidents did not have the appetite for further expansion—and still do not. As one recently told Sports Illustrated, “We are done.” But will that change if the Pac-12 begins to crumble? Will there be any new money, potentially from Big Ten partner Fox or even ESPN?

If there are defectors in the Pac-12 South to the Big 12, the Big Ten could add Pac-12 north schools like Washington and Oregon, at that point desperate for a home, at likely a discount (they’d almost certainly accept a partial distribution rate). And if the Big Ten again expands, what then does that mean for the SEC, which has long fielded interest from ACC schools?

There’s been a long history of interest from the SEC in certain ACC powers as well. In fact, in 1990, when the league voted to expand, officials explored a variety of targets, seriously vetting Florida State before settling on South Carolina and Arkansas. Years later, then coach Bobby Bowden and several athletic administrators involved in the process revealed they turned down an invitation.

Three decades later, the Seminoles are eyeing an exit path, but a route to the SEC isn’t easy. There is little appetite from risk-averse league presidents to entangle themselves in a potentially sticky legal situation over a grant-of-rights. In another note, the league already has a foothold in Florida with the Gators (and as for Clemson, the SEC is already in South Carolina with the Gamecocks). For the SEC, the more attractive options may be schools in new states like North Carolina and Virginia.

For now, the SEC door feels closed, and the Big Ten door seems only slightly ajar. But as is the case with conference realignment, the tide changes quickly.

Everyone is watching the West.

The Pac-12 and Big 12 enter the biggest realignment battle in years, a fight that could expedite what many believe is an inevitability: the football powers consolidating for what seems to be a semiprofessional future model.

“The next wave is coming,” says one Power 5 university president. “It’s not going to stay still. It’s just a matter of when.”

LOL at me learning, today, that College Station is further north than Austin... I guess because I associate it with the NW Houston suburbs, I just assumed it was further south.

TheContractor · May 16, 2023

18 minutes ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

The Ross Dellenger article stands out in a world of deceit and manipulation as the best-written word on the subject for probably the last six months. I didn't see it posted, but it's worth another paste even if it has been posted here.

But before I post it, here's a new P5 map that I like

Dellenger's SI article

https://www.si.com/college/2023/05/15/college-football-expansion-whats-next-power-5-conferences

Hide contents

‘The Next Wave Is Coming’: Expansion, Realignment and What’s at Stake for Power 5 Conferences

How do the Big 12, Pac-12 and ACC keep up while generating millions less than the SEC and Big Ten? Some believe all three of them cannot coexist successfully.

ROSS DELLENGER

13 HOURS AGO

Two weeks ago, inside a lavish resort in suburban Phoenix, down a long hallway and two flights of stairs, executives from two conferences inched closer to further altering the landscape of college sports.

They talked about expansion.

Often sparring publicly with one another, the two sets of league administrators separately met behind closed doors like a pair of boxers secretly preparing for the big fight against each other.

In one corner was the Pac-12, an array of broad-based universities, betrayed by their Los Angeles defectors and now at the mercy of media networks to prevent further departures.

In the other corner is the Big 12, an expanding group of universities, spanning Utah to Florida, with a brash commissioner whose aggressive nature makes him a territorial threat to the West.

The juxtaposition of the scene was fascinating—a mere 20 feet of carpet separating the two meetings within a labyrinth of convention space at the Hyatt Regency Gainey Ranch.

Within the meeting rooms, each league’s strategy unfolded ahead of their proverbial territorial battle. Just paces from the Pac-12’s gathering, Big 12 leaders discussed a list of expansion targets, four of them residing in the Pac-12: Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State and Utah.

Other targets are from a variety of leagues: San Diego State and UNLV from the Mountain West; UConn, which is independent in football and in the Big East in basketball; and Memphis, from the American. There are others, too, such as Colorado State, SMU and Fresno, but they seem further down the pecking order.

The Pac-12, meanwhile, discussed its own expansion possibilities: San Diego State and SMU.

“It could be an active summer,” says one administrator with knowledge of the discussions.

The near-yearlong realignment buzz surrounding these two conferences—will Pac-12 members defect to the Big 12?—is entering what appears to be its final chapter. Over the next 30 to 60 days more clarity is expected as the Pac-12’s new television deal is finalized.

But this is a small piece of a larger puzzle.

The Big 12-versus-Pac 12 territorial fight is one battle in a realignment war that has waged for decades. While the most recent moves were about the consolidation of football’s most valuable brands—Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC, and USC and UCLA to the Big Ten—the next wave is about survival.

How do the Big 12, Pac-12 and ACC keep up competitively while generating millions less than college football’s two behemoths?

Some believe all three of them cannot coexist successfully.

“The big next issue is, can we keep the perception of college athletics as involving all of us?” asks Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick. “Or, does the Big Ten and SEC become college athletics in terms of popular perception, and, if they do, how does that influence shape the future of college athletics?”

The ACC

This week in Amelia Island, administrators from the ACC gather for their own spring meetings.

More frank discussions are expected about the growing revenue gap between it and the SEC/Big Ten. Handcuffed by an ESPN broadcasting contract and grant-of-rights that extends another 13 years, ACC schools could find themselves more than $30 million behind the SEC and Big Ten in annual distribution by the time 2026 arrives.

They are not alone, as the data and analytics company Navigate showed in projections last year.

While the Pac-12 and Big 12 fight their western expansion battle, the ACC is, in many ways, fighting internally.

A subset of seven schools in the 14-member conference has coalesced over what many of them describe as an untenable situation. Officials from the seven schools, led by Florida State and Clemson, have met a handful of times over the past several months, with their lawyers examining the grant-of-rights to determine just how unbreakable it is.

Per the grant-of-rights, each ACC school gives ownership of its broadcasting rights to the league in a deal with ESPN that runs through 2036. If a school breaks the deal, the ACC will continue to own the TV rights of any of that school’s home games, according to the contract.

The ACC’s options are quite limited, both for the group of seven and the league as a whole.

1. Seek additional revenue from ESPN. This is a long shot given the network’s current situation. ESPN, in the midst of a wave of personnel cuts, is also negotiating deals with UFC/WWE, the NBA and Pac-12. While commissioner Jim Phillips and a few ACC presidents met recently with the network over this issue, no significant cash infusion appears imminent.

2. Secede from the league. Some of the schools, possibly the most frustrated lot such as FSU and Clemson, could pay the $120 million exit fee and hope they can break a grant-of-rights agreement that most attorneys—though maybe not their own—say is airtight. That then leaves a very big question: Where do they go? The SEC and Big Ten seem quite comfortable with their current membership, but potential western realignment could trigger them to expand more.

3. Create another league. If the seven agree to dissolve the current grant-of-rights agreement (we don’t know yet if this is a possibility), they may add a couple of more schools and begin their own association in hopes of it being more lucrative. This comes with its own issues, of course. You’d need a broadcast partner or private equity to fund such an endeavor. And, as one official asks, “Will it really be that much more lucrative?”

Basically, there are no easy answers.

No one seems to really be blaming the current commissioner, Phillips. The lengthy ESPN contract was signed by his predecessor and has put the conference at a disadvantage to the Big Ten and SEC, which signed new deals somewhat recently for more heftier payouts.

“It’s not a Jim Phillips thing,” says one high-ranking ACC official. “It’s a revenue thing.”

A fourth option for the league will be further explored this week at meetings: changing the revenue distribution model to a more merit-based system. Instead of equally distributing revenue, this system would award more dollars to those programs excelling on the field.

Administrators have spent the last couple of months discussing this festering issue. It has divided a conference that is less like-minded than most leagues in the country: big football revenue-generators like Florida State, Clemson, Miami and even North Carolina grouped with the likes of Boston College, Syracuse and Wake Forest.

While a vote on a revenue distribution model isn’t expected this week, proposals are likely to be explored as university presidents are now examining the issue.

During a Board of Trustees meeting in February, FSU athletic director Michael Alford seemed to publicly fire a warning shot at the rest of the conference: Change the revenue distribution model or else.

“At the end of the day for Florida State to compete nationally, something has to change going forward,” Alford told his board in a wide-ranging presentation in which he suggested that FSU brings in 15% of ACC media rights value but receives only 7% in distribution.

However, any change in the distribution model falls short of significantly closing the gap between the SEC and Big Ten. In the most successful year under a merit-based model, a school might receive an extra $5 million, one administrator estimates.

An unequal distribution model can also impact the culture of a conference. It can sow divisiveness within a league, says one athletic director from outside the ACC.

“It won’t stop there,” the AD says. “This will be the beginning of the end.”

The Big 12 and Pac-12

Back to that fight out West.

The Pac-12-Big 12 realignment battle will either cause small ripples across the national landscape (this happens if the Pac-12 remains intact), or trigger a tidal wave of change stretching from coast to coast (this happens if the Pac-12 has more defections).

It all hinges on the viability of the Pac-12’s new broadcasting contract, both from a financial and visibility perspective (sure, the money could be better or the same as the Big 12, but what if most of the games are on streaming?). The league is in the 10th month of negotiations. And believable details from those negotiations have been scarce.

The Pac-12’s potential instability has been the single most speculated subject across the college sports landscape over the past few months. Through it all, the conference has publicly shown confidence in the face of assumptions of its impending doom.

One experienced executive describes the entire situation as the most “perplexing” he’s ever witnessed in media rights negotiations.

Factions have formed.

Those inside the Big 12, gunning for Pac-12 defections, believe the league is cooked. Those in the Pac-12, wanting to protect its 10 schools, believe the league will arrive at a strong-enough deal coinciding with a short grant-of-rights (four to six years). And then there is the media, which has produced varying reports of the situation, even sometimes sparring with one another over those reports.

One thing is certain: The Pac-12 plans to expand by adding San Diego State and maybe SMU coinciding with its completion of a new TV deal. But there is a deadline. To start play in 2024, San Diego State owes the Mountain West an exit fee of about $17 million. That triples in cost July 1, a reason for a quasi-deadline to the situation.

One athletic administrator offers his own prediction on the outcome: “I think the highest odds—and it may not be more than 50%—is that the Pac-12 salvages something in the short term to keep it together and it is Dead Man Walking for four years, with the Big Ten and Big 12 sitting there.”

But what if it doesn’t salvage something?

Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark is aggressively pursuing expansion targets in an attempt to reach 14 or 16 members. Top priority are the Arizona schools, Colorado and Utah, but there are plenty of other potential replacements if the Pac-12 programs choose to stay.

Though San Diego State seems bound for the Pac-12—it is their preference—Yormark has held conversations with the school’s leadership about being the Big 12’s only program in the Pacific Time Zone. UConn, the reigning men’s basketball champions, is a play for a foothold in the Northeast as well as adding another basketball powerhouse to what currently is the best hoops league in the country. And of Memphis, the Tigers finished as a finalist the last time the Big 12 expanded.

Yormark’s interest in UNLV seems like a calculated maneuver. Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff, a former casino executive who resides in Las Vegas, is slowly shifting the conference’s hub to Sin City. In an interesting wrinkle, could Kliavkoff’s targeting of SMU be a similar play? SMU is located in the Big 12’s own hub city of Dallas.

The Big 12’s expansion decisions could be solidified in a matter of weeks. Conference administrators meet at the end of the month in West Virginia, including school presidents.

The Big Ten and SEC

This past winter, Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren made a push to expand again, this time targeting Washington and Oregon as a pair of West Coast neighbors to go along with new additions USC and UCLA.

To expand again, more broadcasting dollars (at least $200 million a year) were needed to assure that school distribution remained whole. The most likely broadcasting dollars would come from ESPN or streamers Amazon and Apple. Neither happened.

“It was ‘Show me the money!’ and there wasn’t any money,” says one Big Ten administrator.

Money aside, many of the league’s athletic directors and presidents did not have the appetite for further expansion—and still do not. As one recently told Sports Illustrated, “We are done.” But will that change if the Pac-12 begins to crumble? Will there be any new money, potentially from Big Ten partner Fox or even ESPN?

If there are defectors in the Pac-12 South to the Big 12, the Big Ten could add Pac-12 north schools like Washington and Oregon, at that point desperate for a home, at likely a discount (they’d almost certainly accept a partial distribution rate). And if the Big Ten again expands, what then does that mean for the SEC, which has long fielded interest from ACC schools?

There’s been a long history of interest from the SEC in certain ACC powers as well. In fact, in 1990, when the league voted to expand, officials explored a variety of targets, seriously vetting Florida State before settling on South Carolina and Arkansas. Years later, then coach Bobby Bowden and several athletic administrators involved in the process revealed they turned down an invitation.

Three decades later, the Seminoles are eyeing an exit path, but a route to the SEC isn’t easy. There is little appetite from risk-averse league presidents to entangle themselves in a potentially sticky legal situation over a grant-of-rights. In another note, the league already has a foothold in Florida with the Gators (and as for Clemson, the SEC is already in South Carolina with the Gamecocks). For the SEC, the more attractive options may be schools in new states like North Carolina and Virginia.

For now, the SEC door feels closed, and the Big Ten door seems only slightly ajar. But as is the case with conference realignment, the tide changes quickly.

Everyone is watching the West.

The Pac-12 and Big 12 enter the biggest realignment battle in years, a fight that could expedite what many believe is an inevitability: the football powers consolidating for what seems to be a semiprofessional future model.

“The next wave is coming,” says one Power 5 university president. “It’s not going to stay still. It’s just a matter of when.”

they still have USC and UCLA in Pac but Texas and OU in SEC. Lot of moving parts right now. I hope we get 1-2 years to prove we are top tier SEC before it breaks apart but i do want to break away the the NCAA.

billfromlaketravis · May 16, 2023

I hate this shit. Some regarded Inside Texas poster actually suggested adding the ACC Magnificent 7 + Duke, and an 8 game conference schedule. No. F*** no. We didn’t join the SEC to play Florida and Georgia once every 10 years.

The ACC’s problems are of their own making. Let them solve it. They were dumb enough to accept an ESPN IOU on the ACC Network and some bjorked Tier 3 revenue projections.

Stay at 16. 3-6 conference schedule model. Play everyone every other year. Profit. This isn’t hard.

Edited May 16, 2023 by billfromlaketravis

billfromlaketravis · May 16, 2023

1 hour ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

The Ross Dellenger article stands out in a world of deceit and manipulation as the best-written word on the subject for probably the last six months. I didn't see it posted, but it's worth another paste even if it has been posted here.

But before I post it, here's a new P5 map that I like

Dellenger's SI article

https://www.si.com/college/2023/05/15/college-football-expansion-whats-next-power-5-conferences

Reveal hidden contents

‘The Next Wave Is Coming’: Expansion, Realignment and What’s at Stake for Power 5 Conferences

How do the Big 12, Pac-12 and ACC keep up while generating millions less than the SEC and Big Ten? Some believe all three of them cannot coexist successfully.

ROSS DELLENGER

13 HOURS AGO

Two weeks ago, inside a lavish resort in suburban Phoenix, down a long hallway and two flights of stairs, executives from two conferences inched closer to further altering the landscape of college sports.

They talked about expansion.

Often sparring publicly with one another, the two sets of league administrators separately met behind closed doors like a pair of boxers secretly preparing for the big fight against each other.

In one corner was the Pac-12, an array of broad-based universities, betrayed by their Los Angeles defectors and now at the mercy of media networks to prevent further departures.

In the other corner is the Big 12, an expanding group of universities, spanning Utah to Florida, with a brash commissioner whose aggressive nature makes him a territorial threat to the West.

The juxtaposition of the scene was fascinating—a mere 20 feet of carpet separating the two meetings within a labyrinth of convention space at the Hyatt Regency Gainey Ranch.

Within the meeting rooms, each league’s strategy unfolded ahead of their proverbial territorial battle. Just paces from the Pac-12’s gathering, Big 12 leaders discussed a list of expansion targets, four of them residing in the Pac-12: Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State and Utah.

Other targets are from a variety of leagues: San Diego State and UNLV from the Mountain West; UConn, which is independent in football and in the Big East in basketball; and Memphis, from the American. There are others, too, such as Colorado State, SMU and Fresno, but they seem further down the pecking order.

The Pac-12, meanwhile, discussed its own expansion possibilities: San Diego State and SMU.

“It could be an active summer,” says one administrator with knowledge of the discussions.

The near-yearlong realignment buzz surrounding these two conferences—will Pac-12 members defect to the Big 12?—is entering what appears to be its final chapter. Over the next 30 to 60 days more clarity is expected as the Pac-12’s new television deal is finalized.

But this is a small piece of a larger puzzle.

The Big 12-versus-Pac 12 territorial fight is one battle in a realignment war that has waged for decades. While the most recent moves were about the consolidation of football’s most valuable brands—Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC, and USC and UCLA to the Big Ten—the next wave is about survival.

How do the Big 12, Pac-12 and ACC keep up competitively while generating millions less than college football’s two behemoths?

Some believe all three of them cannot coexist successfully.

“The big next issue is, can we keep the perception of college athletics as involving all of us?” asks Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick. “Or, does the Big Ten and SEC become college athletics in terms of popular perception, and, if they do, how does that influence shape the future of college athletics?”

The ACC

This week in Amelia Island, administrators from the ACC gather for their own spring meetings.

More frank discussions are expected about the growing revenue gap between it and the SEC/Big Ten. Handcuffed by an ESPN broadcasting contract and grant-of-rights that extends another 13 years, ACC schools could find themselves more than $30 million behind the SEC and Big Ten in annual distribution by the time 2026 arrives.

They are not alone, as the data and analytics company Navigate showed in projections last year.

While the Pac-12 and Big 12 fight their western expansion battle, the ACC is, in many ways, fighting internally.

A subset of seven schools in the 14-member conference has coalesced over what many of them describe as an untenable situation. Officials from the seven schools, led by Florida State and Clemson, have met a handful of times over the past several months, with their lawyers examining the grant-of-rights to determine just how unbreakable it is.

Per the grant-of-rights, each ACC school gives ownership of its broadcasting rights to the league in a deal with ESPN that runs through 2036. If a school breaks the deal, the ACC will continue to own the TV rights of any of that school’s home games, according to the contract.

The ACC’s options are quite limited, both for the group of seven and the league as a whole.

1. Seek additional revenue from ESPN. This is a long shot given the network’s current situation. ESPN, in the midst of a wave of personnel cuts, is also negotiating deals with UFC/WWE, the NBA and Pac-12. While commissioner Jim Phillips and a few ACC presidents met recently with the network over this issue, no significant cash infusion appears imminent.

2. Secede from the league. Some of the schools, possibly the most frustrated lot such as FSU and Clemson, could pay the $120 million exit fee and hope they can break a grant-of-rights agreement that most attorneys—though maybe not their own—say is airtight. That then leaves a very big question: Where do they go? The SEC and Big Ten seem quite comfortable with their current membership, but potential western realignment could trigger them to expand more.

3. Create another league. If the seven agree to dissolve the current grant-of-rights agreement (we don’t know yet if this is a possibility), they may add a couple of more schools and begin their own association in hopes of it being more lucrative. This comes with its own issues, of course. You’d need a broadcast partner or private equity to fund such an endeavor. And, as one official asks, “Will it really be that much more lucrative?”

Basically, there are no easy answers.

No one seems to really be blaming the current commissioner, Phillips. The lengthy ESPN contract was signed by his predecessor and has put the conference at a disadvantage to the Big Ten and SEC, which signed new deals somewhat recently for more heftier payouts.

“It’s not a Jim Phillips thing,” says one high-ranking ACC official. “It’s a revenue thing.”

A fourth option for the league will be further explored this week at meetings: changing the revenue distribution model to a more merit-based system. Instead of equally distributing revenue, this system would award more dollars to those programs excelling on the field.

Administrators have spent the last couple of months discussing this festering issue. It has divided a conference that is less like-minded than most leagues in the country: big football revenue-generators like Florida State, Clemson, Miami and even North Carolina grouped with the likes of Boston College, Syracuse and Wake Forest.

While a vote on a revenue distribution model isn’t expected this week, proposals are likely to be explored as university presidents are now examining the issue.

During a Board of Trustees meeting in February, FSU athletic director Michael Alford seemed to publicly fire a warning shot at the rest of the conference: Change the revenue distribution model or else.

“At the end of the day for Florida State to compete nationally, something has to change going forward,” Alford told his board in a wide-ranging presentation in which he suggested that FSU brings in 15% of ACC media rights value but receives only 7% in distribution.

However, any change in the distribution model falls short of significantly closing the gap between the SEC and Big Ten. In the most successful year under a merit-based model, a school might receive an extra $5 million, one administrator estimates.

An unequal distribution model can also impact the culture of a conference. It can sow divisiveness within a league, says one athletic director from outside the ACC.

“It won’t stop there,” the AD says. “This will be the beginning of the end.”

The Big 12 and Pac-12

Back to that fight out West.

The Pac-12-Big 12 realignment battle will either cause small ripples across the national landscape (this happens if the Pac-12 remains intact), or trigger a tidal wave of change stretching from coast to coast (this happens if the Pac-12 has more defections).

It all hinges on the viability of the Pac-12’s new broadcasting contract, both from a financial and visibility perspective (sure, the money could be better or the same as the Big 12, but what if most of the games are on streaming?). The league is in the 10th month of negotiations. And believable details from those negotiations have been scarce.

The Pac-12’s potential instability has been the single most speculated subject across the college sports landscape over the past few months. Through it all, the conference has publicly shown confidence in the face of assumptions of its impending doom.

One experienced executive describes the entire situation as the most “perplexing” he’s ever witnessed in media rights negotiations.

Factions have formed.

Those inside the Big 12, gunning for Pac-12 defections, believe the league is cooked. Those in the Pac-12, wanting to protect its 10 schools, believe the league will arrive at a strong-enough deal coinciding with a short grant-of-rights (four to six years). And then there is the media, which has produced varying reports of the situation, even sometimes sparring with one another over those reports.

One thing is certain: The Pac-12 plans to expand by adding San Diego State and maybe SMU coinciding with its completion of a new TV deal. But there is a deadline. To start play in 2024, San Diego State owes the Mountain West an exit fee of about $17 million. That triples in cost July 1, a reason for a quasi-deadline to the situation.

One athletic administrator offers his own prediction on the outcome: “I think the highest odds—and it may not be more than 50%—is that the Pac-12 salvages something in the short term to keep it together and it is Dead Man Walking for four years, with the Big Ten and Big 12 sitting there.”

But what if it doesn’t salvage something?

Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark is aggressively pursuing expansion targets in an attempt to reach 14 or 16 members. Top priority are the Arizona schools, Colorado and Utah, but there are plenty of other potential replacements if the Pac-12 programs choose to stay.

Though San Diego State seems bound for the Pac-12—it is their preference—Yormark has held conversations with the school’s leadership about being the Big 12’s only program in the Pacific Time Zone. UConn, the reigning men’s basketball champions, is a play for a foothold in the Northeast as well as adding another basketball powerhouse to what currently is the best hoops league in the country. And of Memphis, the Tigers finished as a finalist the last time the Big 12 expanded.

Yormark’s interest in UNLV seems like a calculated maneuver. Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff, a former casino executive who resides in Las Vegas, is slowly shifting the conference’s hub to Sin City. In an interesting wrinkle, could Kliavkoff’s targeting of SMU be a similar play? SMU is located in the Big 12’s own hub city of Dallas.

The Big 12’s expansion decisions could be solidified in a matter of weeks. Conference administrators meet at the end of the month in West Virginia, including school presidents.

The Big Ten and SEC

This past winter, Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren made a push to expand again, this time targeting Washington and Oregon as a pair of West Coast neighbors to go along with new additions USC and UCLA.

To expand again, more broadcasting dollars (at least $200 million a year) were needed to assure that school distribution remained whole. The most likely broadcasting dollars would come from ESPN or streamers Amazon and Apple. Neither happened.

“It was ‘Show me the money!’ and there wasn’t any money,” says one Big Ten administrator.

Money aside, many of the league’s athletic directors and presidents did not have the appetite for further expansion—and still do not. As one recently told Sports Illustrated, “We are done.” But will that change if the Pac-12 begins to crumble? Will there be any new money, potentially from Big Ten partner Fox or even ESPN?

If there are defectors in the Pac-12 South to the Big 12, the Big Ten could add Pac-12 north schools like Washington and Oregon, at that point desperate for a home, at likely a discount (they’d almost certainly accept a partial distribution rate). And if the Big Ten again expands, what then does that mean for the SEC, which has long fielded interest from ACC schools?

There’s been a long history of interest from the SEC in certain ACC powers as well. In fact, in 1990, when the league voted to expand, officials explored a variety of targets, seriously vetting Florida State before settling on South Carolina and Arkansas. Years later, then coach Bobby Bowden and several athletic administrators involved in the process revealed they turned down an invitation.

Three decades later, the Seminoles are eyeing an exit path, but a route to the SEC isn’t easy. There is little appetite from risk-averse league presidents to entangle themselves in a potentially sticky legal situation over a grant-of-rights. In another note, the league already has a foothold in Florida with the Gators (and as for Clemson, the SEC is already in South Carolina with the Gamecocks). For the SEC, the more attractive options may be schools in new states like North Carolina and Virginia.

For now, the SEC door feels closed, and the Big Ten door seems only slightly ajar. But as is the case with conference realignment, the tide changes quickly.

Everyone is watching the West.

The Pac-12 and Big 12 enter the biggest realignment battle in years, a fight that could expedite what many believe is an inevitability: the football powers consolidating for what seems to be a semiprofessional future model.

“The next wave is coming,” says one Power 5 university president. “It’s not going to stay still. It’s just a matter of when.”

The Big 12 adding UNLV, Memphis, and UConn would be very on brand.

TKthunder2 · May 16, 2023

13 hours ago, Vertigo said:

That leaves the B12 in the enviable position to grab the best of the rest. Va Tech in football would be a coup, as would UNC, Louisville, and Miami. There is really no reason to add anyone else unless Yormark is thinking Basketball brands, in which case I could see invites to Duke and Wake.

I don’t normally call out posts, but other than ND as #1, UNC is clearly #2 if all expansion candidates. FSU is #3.

Football means a ton and UNC is a B-/C+ in that category, but they are basically an A in every other category. They are a school that the both sets of presidents (who vote on expansion) would vote for even if it cost them a little money in the short term.

The Big 12, outside of a strange merger situation with UNC and all their pals, has basically no realistic chance of picking them up as a free agent expansion candidate. The B1G/SEC are just offering giant fat stacks of cash that the Big12 has no chance at matching.

(Also if the Big 12 adds Wake Forest then they are dumb as shit)

Sandbagging Steve · May 16, 2023

I was reviewing the new 2022 attendance numbers.

These aren't TV viewership numbers, but sometimes TV viewership numbers don't tell the full story. Some teams have no choice but to play below-average and uncompetitive conference teams while the SEC/B1G play large fan base vs large fan base in competitive contests. Some teams are on a historical losing streak and others are on a historical winning streak. Some teams have to play on generic channels in bad time slots and others play in much better positions.

Just watch Texas/OU and their massive jump in viewership in the SEC. ATM has already shown major improvement from their Big 12 days. It's not all the other teams, it's two big fan bases playing competitive football that draws the full viewership from both fan bases and attracts new viewers from around the country.

2022 Top 25 in attendance

https://badgerswire.usatoday.com/lists/top-25-college-football-teams-in-home-attendance-for-2022-season

Some thoughts:

Despite a decade of losing and a 3-8 season, Virginia Tech still ranks in the top 25 in attendance and pulled as much as USC while they were on a playoff run with their new hotshot coach.

23. Virginia Tech (3-8) 64,356

22. USC (11-3) 64,487

SEC/B1G made up 20 of the 25 teams on the list. Incredible

SEC: 12

B1G: 8

B1G strength is they will more than likely control 4 of only 5 behemoth fan bases in college athletics

tOSU, Michigan, Penn State, Notre Dame (national brand but not yet in the B1G)

SEC only has Texas

B1G will control 5 of the 8 bluebloods in college football, but Nebraska is to be determined.

SEC strength is big brands with competitive history. Vanderbilt is the only weak point in the SEC and Mississippi State is the only other program that is average. State is typically competitive, so it makes it hard to complain.

SEC: 12 of the 25 with numbers 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 18, 25

I might add that Missouri and Mississippi State crack the top 25 from time to time and Kentucky, a basketball blueblood, typically averages close to 55,000 fans. That's 7,000 to 10,000 more than the average of the entire PAC 12 Conference! Vanderbilt is the only pure deadweight in the entire conference. I'd guesstimate that Vanderbilt football costs the SEC $85,000,000 per year moving forward. Every time an SEC team has to play them, it's costing the conference a ton of money. Every game against Vandy could be against a FSU or Clemson instead of a team that not only lacks a fan base but isn't competitive on the field. I'm not talking wins, I'm talking just avoiding blowouts that keep viewers away.

5 teams on the list not in the P2:

24. Washington

23. Virginia Tech

21. Florida State

15. Notre Dame

14. Clemson

Florida State is still trying to recover from an abysmal run. All these teams play in conferences and against competition that hurts their overall attendance and TV viewership. They all have the potential for improvement in the stands and on the TV sets in a better conference. This is why Oregon hasn't expanded its stadium. They would be on this list with huge draws in the few big games every year, but they don't want empty seats against 4-8/7-5 Arizona, Stanford, Cal, Arizona State, Colorado, etc.

For some reason, the 2019 season is the last year showing up for all attendance records straight from the NCAA

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/Attendance/2019.pdf

Only major changes:

21. Iowa State

22. BYU

25. NC State

Virginia Tech and USC are once again neck-and-neck at 23 and 24

I post the NCAA list to review the schools that missed the top 25

26. Mississippi State

27. West Virginia

28. Oklahoma State

29. Missouri

30. Purdue

The one outlier, Purdue on an uptick is the one that ranks much higher in attendance than they can probably get in TV viewership. Their numbers also fall off a cliff when losing.

There's an argument that there's less a gap between UNC/UVA and VT/NC State than some perception leads the fanatics to believe. If Duke has to tag along, it may actually be more beneficial to add VT/NC State. One could also argue VT and NC State could be "rehabbed" with more like-minded culture in the SEC. And with the SEC stacked with very little deadweight, two large public universities in healthy new states bordering SEC country aren't going to cost the conference at the box office.

2019 Conference Attendance:

Average attendance per game

SEC: 72,723

B1G: 65,065

Big 12: 57,467

ACC: 48,243

PAC: 46,080

ACC/PAC can't even average 50,000 attendance and that includes USC/UCLA in the PAC. You can see the challenges facing the top-tier teams in both of these conferences. They play uncompetitive teams with small fan bases on obscure channels in bad time slots way too often. Just think about what they could bring to the SEC/B1G. Heck, even the Big 12 would be a major improvement in the stands and on TV for the top-tier in the PAC/ACC.

SEC/B1G increase their long-term potential every time they add a competitive football program with a large fan base from a flagship university. Every team added that meets this profile (or Notre Dame), brings down the percentage of conference games played against net negative football programs like Vanderbilt, Indiana and usually Purdue. You can even throw in current Maryland, Rutgers, Illinois and Northwestern.

Oregon and Washington added to the B1G means less times tOSU and company play the above net negative teams.

Florida State and Clemson added to the SEC means less times Alabama and company play Vanderbilt.

The long-term potential of adding big brands pays off down the road, especially with added conference games and less OOC games no doubt on the horizon in the future. Take it out of the hands of the universities and the money goes up.

Where are you going to put these games? Lots of places. The premium channels now get a bigger selection to make sure they get massive ratings every single week. And then you can sell lesser packages to streaming services and cable channels like USA Network, if needed. Live TV is KING.

I don't see any way the P2 passes on any of the five teams on this top 25 list plus Oregon/UNC. I also cannot see Miami being left out when the B1G needs helmet programs that can recruit and bring speed to the conference. They can get that in one of the largest states in the country. No way they turn that down, if it's an option.

I'd put it at less than 5% any of these teams get left behind

Sandbagging Steve · May 16, 2023

1 hour ago, billfromlaketravis said:

I hate this shit. Some regarded Inside Texas poster actually suggested adding the ACC Magnificent 7 + Duke, and an 8 game conference schedule. No. F*** no. We didn’t join the SEC to play Florida and Georgia once every 10 years.

The ACC’s problems are of their own making. Let them solve it. They were dumb enough to accept an ESPN IOU on the ACC Network and some bjorked Tier 3 revenue projections.

Stay at 16. 3-6 conference schedule model. Play everyone every other year. Profit. This isn’t hard.

Not all those teams should be added but the worst part of this idea is 8 conference games. The future is actually 10, 11, 12 conference games and that's a win for all involved. Taking the game selection out of the hands of the universities and forcing them to lineup and play each other.

Hurtlocker · May 16, 2023

3 hours ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

The Ross Dellenger article stands out in a world of deceit and manipulation as the best-written word on the subject for probably the last six months. I didn't see it posted, but it's worth another paste even if it has been posted here.

But before I post it, here's a new P5 map that I like

Dellenger's SI article

https://www.si.com/college/2023/05/15/college-football-expansion-whats-next-power-5-conferences

Reveal hidden contents

‘The Next Wave Is Coming’: Expansion, Realignment and What’s at Stake for Power 5 Conferences

How do the Big 12, Pac-12 and ACC keep up while generating millions less than the SEC and Big Ten? Some believe all three of them cannot coexist successfully.

ROSS DELLENGER

13 HOURS AGO

Two weeks ago, inside a lavish resort in suburban Phoenix, down a long hallway and two flights of stairs, executives from two conferences inched closer to further altering the landscape of college sports.

They talked about expansion.

Often sparring publicly with one another, the two sets of league administrators separately met behind closed doors like a pair of boxers secretly preparing for the big fight against each other.

In one corner was the Pac-12, an array of broad-based universities, betrayed by their Los Angeles defectors and now at the mercy of media networks to prevent further departures.

In the other corner is the Big 12, an expanding group of universities, spanning Utah to Florida, with a brash commissioner whose aggressive nature makes him a territorial threat to the West.

The juxtaposition of the scene was fascinating—a mere 20 feet of carpet separating the two meetings within a labyrinth of convention space at the Hyatt Regency Gainey Ranch.

Within the meeting rooms, each league’s strategy unfolded ahead of their proverbial territorial battle. Just paces from the Pac-12’s gathering, Big 12 leaders discussed a list of expansion targets, four of them residing in the Pac-12: Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State and Utah.

Other targets are from a variety of leagues: San Diego State and UNLV from the Mountain West; UConn, which is independent in football and in the Big East in basketball; and Memphis, from the American. There are others, too, such as Colorado State, SMU and Fresno, but they seem further down the pecking order.

The Pac-12, meanwhile, discussed its own expansion possibilities: San Diego State and SMU.

“It could be an active summer,” says one administrator with knowledge of the discussions.

The near-yearlong realignment buzz surrounding these two conferences—will Pac-12 members defect to the Big 12?—is entering what appears to be its final chapter. Over the next 30 to 60 days more clarity is expected as the Pac-12’s new television deal is finalized.

But this is a small piece of a larger puzzle.

The Big 12-versus-Pac 12 territorial fight is one battle in a realignment war that has waged for decades. While the most recent moves were about the consolidation of football’s most valuable brands—Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC, and USC and UCLA to the Big Ten—the next wave is about survival.

How do the Big 12, Pac-12 and ACC keep up competitively while generating millions less than college football’s two behemoths?

Some believe all three of them cannot coexist successfully.

“The big next issue is, can we keep the perception of college athletics as involving all of us?” asks Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick. “Or, does the Big Ten and SEC become college athletics in terms of popular perception, and, if they do, how does that influence shape the future of college athletics?”

The ACC

This week in Amelia Island, administrators from the ACC gather for their own spring meetings.

More frank discussions are expected about the growing revenue gap between it and the SEC/Big Ten. Handcuffed by an ESPN broadcasting contract and grant-of-rights that extends another 13 years, ACC schools could find themselves more than $30 million behind the SEC and Big Ten in annual distribution by the time 2026 arrives.

They are not alone, as the data and analytics company Navigate showed in projections last year.

While the Pac-12 and Big 12 fight their western expansion battle, the ACC is, in many ways, fighting internally.

A subset of seven schools in the 14-member conference has coalesced over what many of them describe as an untenable situation. Officials from the seven schools, led by Florida State and Clemson, have met a handful of times over the past several months, with their lawyers examining the grant-of-rights to determine just how unbreakable it is.

Per the grant-of-rights, each ACC school gives ownership of its broadcasting rights to the league in a deal with ESPN that runs through 2036. If a school breaks the deal, the ACC will continue to own the TV rights of any of that school’s home games, according to the contract.

The ACC’s options are quite limited, both for the group of seven and the league as a whole.

1. Seek additional revenue from ESPN. This is a long shot given the network’s current situation. ESPN, in the midst of a wave of personnel cuts, is also negotiating deals with UFC/WWE, the NBA and Pac-12. While commissioner Jim Phillips and a few ACC presidents met recently with the network over this issue, no significant cash infusion appears imminent.

2. Secede from the league. Some of the schools, possibly the most frustrated lot such as FSU and Clemson, could pay the $120 million exit fee and hope they can break a grant-of-rights agreement that most attorneys—though maybe not their own—say is airtight. That then leaves a very big question: Where do they go? The SEC and Big Ten seem quite comfortable with their current membership, but potential western realignment could trigger them to expand more.

3. Create another league. If the seven agree to dissolve the current grant-of-rights agreement (we don’t know yet if this is a possibility), they may add a couple of more schools and begin their own association in hopes of it being more lucrative. This comes with its own issues, of course. You’d need a broadcast partner or private equity to fund such an endeavor. And, as one official asks, “Will it really be that much more lucrative?”

Basically, there are no easy answers.

No one seems to really be blaming the current commissioner, Phillips. The lengthy ESPN contract was signed by his predecessor and has put the conference at a disadvantage to the Big Ten and SEC, which signed new deals somewhat recently for more heftier payouts.

“It’s not a Jim Phillips thing,” says one high-ranking ACC official. “It’s a revenue thing.”

A fourth option for the league will be further explored this week at meetings: changing the revenue distribution model to a more merit-based system. Instead of equally distributing revenue, this system would award more dollars to those programs excelling on the field.

Administrators have spent the last couple of months discussing this festering issue. It has divided a conference that is less like-minded than most leagues in the country: big football revenue-generators like Florida State, Clemson, Miami and even North Carolina grouped with the likes of Boston College, Syracuse and Wake Forest.

While a vote on a revenue distribution model isn’t expected this week, proposals are likely to be explored as university presidents are now examining the issue.

During a Board of Trustees meeting in February, FSU athletic director Michael Alford seemed to publicly fire a warning shot at the rest of the conference: Change the revenue distribution model or else.

“At the end of the day for Florida State to compete nationally, something has to change going forward,” Alford told his board in a wide-ranging presentation in which he suggested that FSU brings in 15% of ACC media rights value but receives only 7% in distribution.

However, any change in the distribution model falls short of significantly closing the gap between the SEC and Big Ten. In the most successful year under a merit-based model, a school might receive an extra $5 million, one administrator estimates.

An unequal distribution model can also impact the culture of a conference. It can sow divisiveness within a league, says one athletic director from outside the ACC.

“It won’t stop there,” the AD says. “This will be the beginning of the end.”

The Big 12 and Pac-12

Back to that fight out West.

The Pac-12-Big 12 realignment battle will either cause small ripples across the national landscape (this happens if the Pac-12 remains intact), or trigger a tidal wave of change stretching from coast to coast (this happens if the Pac-12 has more defections).

It all hinges on the viability of the Pac-12’s new broadcasting contract, both from a financial and visibility perspective (sure, the money could be better or the same as the Big 12, but what if most of the games are on streaming?). The league is in the 10th month of negotiations. And believable details from those negotiations have been scarce.

The Pac-12’s potential instability has been the single most speculated subject across the college sports landscape over the past few months. Through it all, the conference has publicly shown confidence in the face of assumptions of its impending doom.

One experienced executive describes the entire situation as the most “perplexing” he’s ever witnessed in media rights negotiations.

Factions have formed.

Those inside the Big 12, gunning for Pac-12 defections, believe the league is cooked. Those in the Pac-12, wanting to protect its 10 schools, believe the league will arrive at a strong-enough deal coinciding with a short grant-of-rights (four to six years). And then there is the media, which has produced varying reports of the situation, even sometimes sparring with one another over those reports.

One thing is certain: The Pac-12 plans to expand by adding San Diego State and maybe SMU coinciding with its completion of a new TV deal. But there is a deadline. To start play in 2024, San Diego State owes the Mountain West an exit fee of about $17 million. That triples in cost July 1, a reason for a quasi-deadline to the situation.

One athletic administrator offers his own prediction on the outcome: “I think the highest odds—and it may not be more than 50%—is that the Pac-12 salvages something in the short term to keep it together and it is Dead Man Walking for four years, with the Big Ten and Big 12 sitting there.”

But what if it doesn’t salvage something?

Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark is aggressively pursuing expansion targets in an attempt to reach 14 or 16 members. Top priority are the Arizona schools, Colorado and Utah, but there are plenty of other potential replacements if the Pac-12 programs choose to stay.

Though San Diego State seems bound for the Pac-12—it is their preference—Yormark has held conversations with the school’s leadership about being the Big 12’s only program in the Pacific Time Zone. UConn, the reigning men’s basketball champions, is a play for a foothold in the Northeast as well as adding another basketball powerhouse to what currently is the best hoops league in the country. And of Memphis, the Tigers finished as a finalist the last time the Big 12 expanded.

Yormark’s interest in UNLV seems like a calculated maneuver. Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff, a former casino executive who resides in Las Vegas, is slowly shifting the conference’s hub to Sin City. In an interesting wrinkle, could Kliavkoff’s targeting of SMU be a similar play? SMU is located in the Big 12’s own hub city of Dallas.

The Big 12’s expansion decisions could be solidified in a matter of weeks. Conference administrators meet at the end of the month in West Virginia, including school presidents.

The Big Ten and SEC

This past winter, Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren made a push to expand again, this time targeting Washington and Oregon as a pair of West Coast neighbors to go along with new additions USC and UCLA.

To expand again, more broadcasting dollars (at least $200 million a year) were needed to assure that school distribution remained whole. The most likely broadcasting dollars would come from ESPN or streamers Amazon and Apple. Neither happened.

“It was ‘Show me the money!’ and there wasn’t any money,” says one Big Ten administrator.

Money aside, many of the league’s athletic directors and presidents did not have the appetite for further expansion—and still do not. As one recently told Sports Illustrated, “We are done.” But will that change if the Pac-12 begins to crumble? Will there be any new money, potentially from Big Ten partner Fox or even ESPN?

If there are defectors in the Pac-12 South to the Big 12, the Big Ten could add Pac-12 north schools like Washington and Oregon, at that point desperate for a home, at likely a discount (they’d almost certainly accept a partial distribution rate). And if the Big Ten again expands, what then does that mean for the SEC, which has long fielded interest from ACC schools?

There’s been a long history of interest from the SEC in certain ACC powers as well. In fact, in 1990, when the league voted to expand, officials explored a variety of targets, seriously vetting Florida State before settling on South Carolina and Arkansas. Years later, then coach Bobby Bowden and several athletic administrators involved in the process revealed they turned down an invitation.

Three decades later, the Seminoles are eyeing an exit path, but a route to the SEC isn’t easy. There is little appetite from risk-averse league presidents to entangle themselves in a potentially sticky legal situation over a grant-of-rights. In another note, the league already has a foothold in Florida with the Gators (and as for Clemson, the SEC is already in South Carolina with the Gamecocks). For the SEC, the more attractive options may be schools in new states like North Carolina and Virginia.

For now, the SEC door feels closed, and the Big Ten door seems only slightly ajar. But as is the case with conference realignment, the tide changes quickly.

Everyone is watching the West.

The Pac-12 and Big 12 enter the biggest realignment battle in years, a fight that could expedite what many believe is an inevitability: the football powers consolidating for what seems to be a semiprofessional future model.

“The next wave is coming,” says one Power 5 university president. “It’s not going to stay still. It’s just a matter of when.”

Agree, i like that map. So, let's play the 60 game:

B1G 16 + 4: ND/Stanford, then who? UVA/UNC, BC (hockey, Irish/B1G Alums, massive market), Colorado to have a layover, Georgia Tech? Does Oregon/Washington still make sense? I'm going with ND/Stanford/UVA/UNC because that feels like how a B1G President would vote.

SEC 16 + 4: If UVA/UNC is off the board - FSU/Clemson/NCSt/VTech Not as sexy, but condensed, plants a flag in two fast growing states, gains a multiple recent natty not too far from the ATL, and doubles up on both Florida and Texas.

B12 + 8: Could have the following to choose from - Arizona, ASU, Cal, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Pitt, Miami, Utah, Louisville, Gtech? Looking at monetization I'd likely go: Oregon, Miami, Washington, Arizona, ASU, Colorado, Pitt, then either a knife fight between Louisville and Utah, or plant a flag in Cal.

Possible Left-out: BC/Cuse/Wake/Duke/GTech/Cal/Oregon State/Washington State

Break away and focus all football on those three. Only need half the autos any more. Also don't need to share with the left-outs nor the Gs. If you really wanted to skyrocket the money, take all 60 to the market at the same time through a consolidated entity. You could get to stupid money if all 60 only played themselves and managed/negotiated as a single group.

Edited May 16, 2023 by Hurtlocker

Sandbagging Steve · May 16, 2023

12 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Agree, i like that map. So, let's play the 60 game:

B1G 16 + 4: ND/Stanford, then who? UVA/UNC, BC (hockey, Irish/B1G Alums, massive market), Colorado to have a layover, Georgia Tech? Does Oregon/Washington still make sense? I'm going with ND/Stanford/UVA/UNC because that feels like how a B1G President would vote.

SEC 16 + 4: If UVA/UNC is off the board - FSU/Clemson/NCSt/VTech Not as sexy, but condensed, plants a flag in two fast growing states, gains a multiple recent natty not too far from the ATL, and doubles up on both Florida and Texas.

B12 + 8: Could have the following to choose from - Arizona, ASU, Cal, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Pitt, Miami, Utah, Louisville, Gtech? Looking at monetization I'd likely go: Oregon, Miami, Washington, Arizona, ASU, Colorado, Pitt, then either a knife fight between Louisville and Utah, or plant a flag in Cal.

Possible Left-out: BC/Cuse/Wake/Duke/GTech/Cal/Oregon State/Washington State

Break away and focus all football on those three. Only need half the autos any more. Also don't need to share with the left-outs nor the Gs. If you really wanted to skyrocket the money, take all 60 to the market at the same time through a consolidated entity. You could get to stupid money if all 60 only played themselves and managed/negotiated as a single group.

I will put what I think has at least a realistic option in the long run and that is best for college football

I also see 10/11/12-plus-game conference schedules in the future with few to no OOC games before the playoff.

SEC (20): VT, NC State, FSU, Clemson

*But I could see UNC/UVA added or taking the place of VT, NC State.

*VT and NC State could also end up in the Big 12

B1G (24 to 28): Notre Dame, Oregon, Washington, UNC, UVA, Georgia Tech, Miami, Duke (basketball only)

*I could see the B1G adding Stanford, Arizona (rehabbed), Utah and Colorado (rehabbed) down the road. The B1G will have 4 of the 5 behemoths in tOSU, Michigan, Penn State and Notre Dame. This allows them to finish their 30+ year plan for a national conference that stretches coast-to-coast with continuous borders. They can afford to take Georgia Tech, and Stanford and fill in geographic territory with a Colorado and Arizona.

*I gave the B1G UNC/UVA not because I'm confident they go there, but because I think it's best for college football. The more I think about it, the more VT and NC State fit in the SEC and the more the B1G really needs UNC/UVA to fill in geography to reach Flordia and help their lagging recruiting efforts.

With the Big 12, we first must look at the long-term new goals of the new, aggressive commissioner. He's looking to build a national conference of programs that bring stabilization and financial security. What kind of profile fits this description?

1. Big public universities OR large geographical areas and new territory

2. Competitive on the field but not necessarily measured in wins

3. Investment in football/basketball facilities and hiring of coaches

4. Basketball success with a solid football program

5. Potential for growth

Big 12 (20-22 + 3 basketball giants): SDSU, Fresno State, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Colorado, Pitt, Louisville, Memphis, South Florida, UCONN (all sports but football), Gonzaga (all sports but football), Syracuse (all sports but football)

*This may be harder to predict. Will the B1G eventually come back and fill in geography? Will the B1G take GT to get to Atlanta and open the gate to Florida? I think GT is 50/50 to the B1G vs. Big 12 in the long run. Will Cal be forced to put their academic snobbery on hold, get desperate and hold their nose while joining the Big 12? Will VT and NC State get left out of the P2 and end up in the Big 12? Does Oregon State eventually get an invite? I don't think so. SDSU, Memphis, South Florida, and Fresno State are down-the-road picks based on potential.

*I would like to see the Big 12 play a 12 or 13-game conference schedule and no OOC games. Add a 4 team conference playoff at the end up of the season. Teams worthy of the national playoff get invited. Some of this stuff, if anything like it ever happens, is still down the road.

66 teams + 4 basketball programs breakaway but still invite some other conferences to the Big Dance.

All conference game schedules (no more than one OOC game) in order to increase competitiveness, which increases revenue generated and makes for happy fans.

PittsburghTiger · May 16, 2023

It just seems that schools are making decisions before thinking of where they will go next. It’s all turning to shit. In five years will networks like ESPN really matter? Will all games be streamed?

I’m thinking it is time for the 64-, or 72-, team mega conference with four regions.

These egg-head ADs will ruin it all.

DFW Horn · May 16, 2023

Has anyone seen the SEC's new media contract(s)?

Even if the "Magnificant 7" were able to breakaway from the ACC, there's no guarantee any will get SEC or B1G invites. And how does FSU and Clemson intend to squeeze the ACC for disproportionate shares? With a threat they're leaving in 2036? Good luck with that.

This is turning into one big circle jerk.

TKthunder2 · May 16, 2023

51 minutes ago, PittsburghTiger said:

It just seems that schools are making decisions before thinking of where they will go next. It’s all turning to shit. In five years will networks like ESPN really matter? Will all games be streamed?

I’m thinking it is time for the 64-, or 72-, team mega conference with four regions.

These egg-head ADs will ruin it all.

Games will be streamed but they will be streamed on ESPN/FOX or a streaming service like Amazon Prime Video still. The SEC or Big Ten isn’t likely to launch their own service like the PAC12 attempted. And don’t discount old/poor people still watching OTA (that’s where the Big Ten was really smart in prioritizing OTA content).

43 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

Has anyone seen the SEC's new media contract(s)?

Even if the "Magnificant 7" were able to breakaway from the ACC, there's no guarantee any will get SEC or B1G invites. And how does FSU and Clemson intend to squeeze the ACC for disproportionate shares? With a threat they're leaving in 2036? Good luck with that.

This is turning into one big circle jerk.

The SEC’s contract is about to be renegotiated with UT/OU joining and going to 9 conference games.

The 7 don’t need invites to the SEC/B1G, simply getting invited to the Big12 will get them paid. ESPN (even without FOX chipping in) will pay the ACC teams more in the Big 12 than they would make staying in ACC.

This is why I suspect ESPN will give over more money now to keep its ACC inventory from FOX in exchange for 9 conference games and better OOC matchups (organized by ESPN against the SEC/B12).

DFW Horn · May 16, 2023

13 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Games will be streamed but they will be streamed on ESPN/FOX or a streaming service like Amazon Prime Video still. The SEC or Big Ten isn’t likely to launch their own service like the PAC12 attempted. And don’t discount old/poor people still watching OTA (that’s where the Big Ten was really smart in prioritizing OTA content).

The SEC’s contract is about to be renegotiated with UT/OU joining and going to 9 conference games.

The 7 don’t need invites to the SEC/B1G, simply getting invited to the Big12 will get them paid. ESPN (even without FOX chipping in) will pay the ACC teams more in the Big 12 than they would make staying in ACC.

This is why I suspect ESPN will give over more money now to keep its ACC inventory from FOX in exchange for 9 conference games and better OOC matchups (organized by ESPN against the SEC/B12).

How much more will Big 12 teams make vs ACC? $2-3MM per year?

Yeah, the ACC should bump their conference slate to 9 games for ESPN to match the Big 12 pay-outs. That should've happened yesterday. This still puts ACC teams, what, $20MM behind SEC/B1G teams annually?

Hurtlocker · May 16, 2023

1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

Games will be streamed but they will be streamed on ESPN/FOX or a streaming service like Amazon Prime Video still. The SEC or Big Ten isn’t likely to launch their own service like the PAC12 attempted. And don’t discount old/poor people still watching OTA (that’s where the Big Ten was really smart in prioritizing OTA content).

But, they could. Package it all together, like @PittsburghTiger suggests, and build your own streaming presence either with the assistance of an Apple/Amazon and sell it as a full college football subscription service, or provide it to ESPN+/Peacock for tens of billions a year.

While CFB will never be as big as the NFL on a per game basis, the one thing that keeps CFB down compared to NFL numbers is how the inventory is fractured. Thinking B1G vs SEC is part of the problem. The NFL doesn't take out the rights to the NFC north different than the NFC east. Its packaged and split to provide the highest possible audience in every market.

CFB could do this, and put a multiplier on what they're making now, but they need to get out of their own way first.

Edited May 16, 2023 by Hurtlocker

Al_4_ISU · May 16, 2023

Just take the top 72 schools, have 8 divisions of 9 teams each. Round robin schedule in the division. 4 open dates to play whoever the fuck you want outside of the division. End the conference model. If the schools in the Big 10 or Pac 12 want to have academic collaborations or arrangements, go for it.

8 team playoff with the division winners, bowl games for good teams that don't win the division.

1 media deal split among the whole group. You could even distribute payouts based off ratings.

You return the game to geographic sense, you have plenty of opportunities for blue bloods to play each other, you maximize revenue, and you bolster fan engagement.

statsman · May 16, 2023

9 hours ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

I was reviewing the new 2022 attendance numbers.

These aren't TV viewership numbers, but sometimes TV viewership numbers don't tell the full story. Some teams have no choice but to play below-average and uncompetitive conference teams while the SEC/B1G play large fan base vs large fan base in competitive contests. Some teams are on a historical losing streak and others are on a historical winning streak. Some teams have to play on generic channels in bad time slots and others play in much better positions.

Just watch Texas/OU and their massive jump in viewership in the SEC. ATM has already shown major improvement from their Big 12 days. It's not all the other teams, it's two big fan bases playing competitive football that draws the full viewership from both fan bases and attracts new viewers from around the country.

2022 Top 25 in attendance

https://badgerswire.usatoday.com/lists/top-25-college-football-teams-in-home-attendance-for-2022-season

Some thoughts:

Despite a decade of losing and a 3-8 season, Virginia Tech still ranks in the top 25 in attendance and pulled as much as USC while they were on a playoff run with their new hotshot coach.

23. Virginia Tech (3-8) 64,356

22. USC (11-3) 64,487

SEC/B1G made up 20 of the 25 teams on the list. Incredible

SEC: 12

B1G: 8

B1G strength is they will more than likely control 4 of only 5 behemoth fan bases in college athletics

tOSU, Michigan, Penn State, Notre Dame (national brand but not yet in the B1G)

SEC only has Texas

B1G will control 5 of the 8 bluebloods in college football, but Nebraska is to be determined.

SEC strength is big brands with competitive history. Vanderbilt is the only weak point in the SEC and Mississippi State is the only other program that is average. State is typically competitive, so it makes it hard to complain.

SEC: 12 of the 25 with numbers 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 18, 25

I might add that Missouri and Mississippi State crack the top 25 from time to time and Kentucky, a basketball blueblood, typically averages close to 55,000 fans. That's 7,000 to 10,000 more than the average of the entire PAC 12 Conference! Vanderbilt is the only pure deadweight in the entire conference. I'd guesstimate that Vanderbilt football costs the SEC $85,000,000 per year moving forward. Every time an SEC team has to play them, it's costing the conference a ton of money. Every game against Vandy could be against a FSU or Clemson instead of a team that not only lacks a fan base but isn't competitive on the field. I'm not talking wins, I'm talking just avoiding blowouts that keep viewers away.

5 teams on the list not in the P2:

24. Washington

23. Virginia Tech

21. Florida State

15. Notre Dame

14. Clemson

Florida State is still trying to recover from an abysmal run. All these teams play in conferences and against competition that hurts their overall attendance and TV viewership. They all have the potential for improvement in the stands and on the TV sets in a better conference. This is why Oregon hasn't expanded its stadium. They would be on this list with huge draws in the few big games every year, but they don't want empty seats against 4-8/7-5 Arizona, Stanford, Cal, Arizona State, Colorado, etc.

For some reason, the 2019 season is the last year showing up for all attendance records straight from the NCAA

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/Attendance/2019.pdf

Only major changes:

21. Iowa State

22. BYU

25. NC State

Virginia Tech and USC are once again neck-and-neck at 23 and 24

I post the NCAA list to review the schools that missed the top 25

26. Mississippi State

27. West Virginia

28. Oklahoma State

29. Missouri

30. Purdue

The one outlier, Purdue on an uptick is the one that ranks much higher in attendance than they can probably get in TV viewership. Their numbers also fall off a cliff when losing.

There's an argument that there's less a gap between UNC/UVA and VT/NC State than some perception leads the fanatics to believe. If Duke has to tag along, it may actually be more beneficial to add VT/NC State. One could also argue VT and NC State could be "rehabbed" with more like-minded culture in the SEC. And with the SEC stacked with very little deadweight, two large public universities in healthy new states bordering SEC country aren't going to cost the conference at the box office.

2019 Conference Attendance:

Average attendance per game

SEC: 72,723

B1G: 65,065

Big 12: 57,467

ACC: 48,243

PAC: 46,080

ACC/PAC can't even average 50,000 attendance and that includes USC/UCLA in the PAC. You can see the challenges facing the top-tier teams in both of these conferences. They play uncompetitive teams with small fan bases on obscure channels in bad time slots way too often. Just think about what they could bring to the SEC/B1G. Heck, even the Big 12 would be a major improvement in the stands and on TV for the top-tier in the PAC/ACC.

SEC/B1G increase their long-term potential every time they add a competitive football program with a large fan base from a flagship university. Every team added that meets this profile (or Notre Dame), brings down the percentage of conference games played against net negative football programs like Vanderbilt, Indiana and usually Purdue. You can even throw in current Maryland, Rutgers, Illinois and Northwestern.

Oregon and Washington added to the B1G means less times tOSU and company play the above net negative teams.

Florida State and Clemson added to the SEC means less times Alabama and company play Vanderbilt.

The long-term potential of adding big brands pays off down the road, especially with added conference games and less OOC games no doubt on the horizon in the future. Take it out of the hands of the universities and the money goes up.

Where are you going to put these games? Lots of places. The premium channels now get a bigger selection to make sure they get massive ratings every single week. And then you can sell lesser packages to streaming services and cable channels like USA Network, if needed. Live TV is KING.

I don't see any way the P2 passes on any of the five teams on this top 25 list plus Oregon/UNC. I also cannot see Miami being left out when the B1G needs helmet programs that can recruit and bring speed to the conference. They can get that in one of the largest states in the country. No way they turn that down, if it's an option.

I'd put it at less than 5% any of these teams get left behind

That’s a lot of good work, but I believe ticket revenue is a better indicator than number of tickets sold. What is a better comparison of Texas’ and Baylor’s attractiveness? Texas having twice the attendance, or Texas having eight times the ticket revenue?

Hurtlocker · May 16, 2023

2 minutes ago, statsman said:

That’s a lot of good work, but I believe ticket revenue is a better indicator than number of tickets sold. What is a better comparison of Texas’ and Baylor’s attractiveness? Texas having twice the attendance, or Texas having eight times the ticket revenue?

They tend to go hand in hand:

First step: Fill what you have

Second step: build on what you have

Third step: create scarcity which increases price.

Texas is in the third step, but being in step two is still in the top 20% of FBS. Avoid anyone who can't do one.

hook me · May 16, 2023

The SEC adding Va Tech/NCST on their own seems as silly as the Big 12 adding UNLV or SDSU. They offer nothing & dilute the payout to other schools. Just because the states are large doesn't mean it makes sense to add them. ND, FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA, UO, UW, Miami. That's it. That's the list & honestly only 4 of them make sense for the SEC since ND is B1G in ACC clothing. FSU/Miami, Clemson, UVA, UNC. I'd think the SEC would throw the kitchen sink to get UNC (add Duke/NCST if needed) in order to get another BB blue blood & keep them away from the B1G.

If you can get UNC without a tag-a-long you can still pursue UVA, Clemson, & 1 of FSU/Miami. If they come with baggage (which I would bet they do & ESPN/SEC would probably prefer Duke to NCST) then someone gets kicked off that list & my guess is UVA has a spot if they want it, so it's possible the SEC doesn't end up with Clemson or a FL school unless UVA decides to split from UNC. I don't really know how close those 2 are or what their decision makers would prefer. It seems like sports enthusiasts want them in the SEC & academic people want them in the B1G. The good news is the B1G seems to be settled where they're at until something happens with the PAC so now would be the time for Sankey to set the dominoes to get UNC in the boat at the first opportunity.

Vertigo · May 16, 2023

10 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

I don’t normally call out posts, but other than ND as #1, UNC is clearly #2 if all expansion candidates. FSU is #3.

Football means a ton and UNC is a B-/C+ in that category, but they are basically an A in every other category. They are a school that the both sets of presidents (who vote on expansion) would vote for even if it cost them a little money in the short term.

The Big 12, outside of a strange merger situation with UNC and all their pals, has basically no realistic chance of picking them up as a free agent expansion candidate. The B1G/SEC are just offering giant fat stacks of cash that the Big12 has no chance at matching.

(Also if the Big 12 adds Wake Forest then they are dumb as shit)

I definitely agree that UNC is one of the most valuable brands out there, but if football is driving the bus on expansion, and conferences are only expanding for higher TV revenues, then UNC bringing in roughly 1 million viewers per week for football on average does not really move the needle. It would be a very similar situation to Kansas, and we have seen how Kansas has been put on the shelf in realignment talks. Basketball alone is not going to get them into the B1G or SEC. Do I ultimately think they get an invite? I think there is a greater than 50% chance, but I am not sure it is a lock.

Edited May 16, 2023 by Vertigo

Hurtlocker · May 16, 2023

21 minutes ago, hook me said:

The SEC adding Va Tech/NCST on their own seems as silly as the Big 12 adding UNLV or SDSU. They offer nothing & dilute the payout to other schools. Just because the states are large doesn't mean it makes sense to add them. ND, FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA, UO, UW, Miami. That's it. That's the list & honestly only 4 of them make sense for the SEC since ND is B1G in ACC clothing. FSU/Miami, Clemson, UVA, UNC. I'd think the SEC would throw the kitchen sink to get UNC (add Duke/NCST if needed) in order to get another BB blue blood & keep them away from the B1G.

If you can get UNC without a tag-a-long you can still pursue UVA, Clemson, & 1 of FSU/Miami. If they come with baggage (which I would bet they do & ESPN/SEC would probably prefer Duke to NCST) then someone gets kicked off that list & my guess is UVA has a spot if they want it, so it's possible the SEC doesn't end up with Clemson or a FL school unless UVA decides to split from UNC. I don't really know how close those 2 are or what their decision makers would prefer. It seems like sports enthusiasts want them in the SEC & academic people want them in the B1G. The good news is the B1G seems to be settled where they're at until something happens with the PAC so now would be the time for Sankey to set the dominoes to get UNC in the boat at the first opportunity.

There are zero properties in the ACC that will add to either the B1G nor SEC. Literally zero. If this gobble occurs its like a Rutgers move, planning for 20+ years out.

PittsburghTiger · May 16, 2023

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Just take the top 72 schools, have 8 divisions of 9 teams each. Round robin schedule in the division. 4 open dates to play whoever the fuck you want outside of the division. End the conference model. If the schools in the Big 10 or Pac 12 want to have academic collaborations or arrangements, go for it.

8 team playoff with the division winners, bowl games for good teams that don't win the division.

1 media deal split among the whole group. You could even distribute payouts based off ratings.

You return the game to geographic sense, you have plenty of opportunities for blue bloods to play each other, you maximize revenue, and you bolster fan engagement.

I think the major issue is that everyone is looking out for themselves. In the 80s that Fucker, Paterno, tried to tell Pitt, Syracuse & WVU that we all needed to give them two home games for one at our places. It’s bordering on insanity now.

And I don’t think any of this is sustainable. And these lost rivalries are a stain on college athletics.

Your final paragraph is what is needed.

BluTechsan · May 16, 2023

*If* the ACC breaks up and FSU, Clemson, Miami, NC are off the board

and the BIG grabs Oregon/Wash

Big12 targets should be (in order)

Big16:

1. Arizona

2. Utah

3. Pitt

4. ‘Ville

Big18:

5. ASU

6. CU

Big20: any combo of two

7a. NCST

7b. Memphis

7c. VTech

7d. SDST

Al_4_ISU · May 16, 2023

45 minutes ago, PittsburghTiger said:

I think the major issue is that everyone is looking out for themselves. In the 80s that Fucker, Paterno, tried to tell Pitt, Syracuse & WVU that we all needed to give them two home games for one at our places. It’s bordering on insanity now.

And I don’t think any of this is sustainable. And these lost rivalries are a stain on college athletics.

Your final paragraph is what is needed.

I honestly think this kind of arrangement, especially with a payouts based on ratings distribution model, would be the best for everyone.

Vertigo · May 16, 2023

2 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

There are zero properties in the ACC that will add to either the B1G nor SEC. Literally zero. If this gobble occurs its like a Rutgers move, planning for 20+ years out.

Va Tech is actually the third highest average ratings for ACC schools in terms of viewership. After them, there is a steep dropoff to roughly 1 million viewers for the rest of the conference, and that includes UNC, UVA, Miami, etc.

hook me · May 16, 2023

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

There are zero properties in the ACC that will add to either the B1G nor SEC. Literally zero. If this gobble occurs its like a Rutgers move, planning for 20+ years out.

While that's true, there are some that get a LOT closer than others to at least breaking even, or have some other positive reason for adding. NCST/Va Tech don't make any sense on any level for the SEC or B1G. They make a lot of sense for the Big 12 or a reformatted ACC. The Rutgers move was a money grab by the B1G & rutgers & has worked out well for them while being a complete waste of money for the networks. That worked 10 years ago, but with all the belt-tightening going on at Disney I seriously doubt they're going to pony up the money for those two. On top of that, the SEC doesn't seem too keen on adding schools like NCST & Va Tech considering they wouldn't even take OU without UT coming along as well & it seems entirely unlikely that they would watch UNC, UVA, & ND run to the B1G & follow that up with little brothers that no one cares about.

Vertigo · May 16, 2023

12 hours ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

I will put what I think has at least a realistic option in the long run and that is best for college football

I also see 10/11/12-plus-game conference schedules in the future with few to no OOC games before the playoff.

SEC (20): VT, NC State, FSU, Clemson

*But I could see UNC/UVA added or taking the place of VT, NC State.

*VT and NC State could also end up in the Big 12

B1G (24 to 28): Notre Dame, Oregon, Washington, UNC, UVA, Georgia Tech, Miami, Duke (basketball only)

*I could see the B1G adding Stanford, Arizona (rehabbed), Utah and Colorado (rehabbed) down the road. The B1G will have 4 of the 5 behemoths in tOSU, Michigan, Penn State and Notre Dame. This allows them to finish their 30+ year plan for a national conference that stretches coast-to-coast with continuous borders. They can afford to take Georgia Tech, and Stanford and fill in geographic territory with a Colorado and Arizona.

*I gave the B1G UNC/UVA not because I'm confident they go there, but because I think it's best for college football. The more I think about it, the more VT and NC State fit in the SEC and the more the B1G really needs UNC/UVA to fill in geography to reach Flordia and help their lagging recruiting efforts.

With the Big 12, we first must look at the long-term new goals of the new, aggressive commissioner. He's looking to build a national conference of programs that bring stabilization and financial security. What kind of profile fits this description?

1. Big public universities OR large geographical areas and new territory

2. Competitive on the field but not necessarily measured in wins

3. Investment in football/basketball facilities and hiring of coaches

4. Basketball success with a solid football program

5. Potential for growth

Big 12 (20-22 + 3 basketball giants): SDSU, Fresno State, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Colorado, Pitt, Louisville, Memphis, South Florida, UCONN (all sports but football), Gonzaga (all sports but football), Syracuse (all sports but football)

*This may be harder to predict. Will the B1G eventually come back and fill in geography? Will the B1G take GT to get to Atlanta and open the gate to Florida? I think GT is 50/50 to the B1G vs. Big 12 in the long run. Will Cal be forced to put their academic snobbery on hold, get desperate and hold their nose while joining the Big 12? Will VT and NC State get left out of the P2 and end up in the Big 12? Does Oregon State eventually get an invite? I don't think so. SDSU, Memphis, South Florida, and Fresno State are down-the-road picks based on potential.

*I would like to see the Big 12 play a 12 or 13-game conference schedule and no OOC games. Add a 4 team conference playoff at the end up of the season. Teams worthy of the national playoff get invited. Some of this stuff, if anything like it ever happens, is still down the road.

66 teams + 4 basketball programs breakaway but still invite some other conferences to the Big Dance.

All conference game schedules (no more than one OOC game) in order to increase competitiveness, which increases revenue generated and makes for happy fans.

The economics absolutely do not support the B1G going to 24 or 28 teams. I think we are headed to 3 power conferences of 18-20 in football, plus possibly a 4th "power conference lite" that arises out of the rubble of the left behinds plus some of the other fringe schools being talked about in all of the realignment discussions. That would seem to make more sense rather than schools like Duke, Georgia Tech, Utah, Arizona State, etc going down to G5. Their alumni bases would not tolerate that.

Edited May 16, 2023 by Vertigo

statsman · May 16, 2023

I think the SEC really does have a block against adding schools from states that already have members (unless they’re clearly that state’s flagship). Too bad for FSU, and Miami. Maybe too bad for Clemson.

I really don’t see any more adds for the SEC.

The B12 may be cautious about adding teams that clearly want to be in the SEC or B10. Or, maybe not.

gatormarc · May 16, 2023

1 hour ago, hook me said:

On top of that, the SEC doesn't seem too keen on adding schools like NCST & Va Tech considering they wouldn't even take OU without UT coming along as well

While realignment is a fun topic, I don't think the average SEC fan hasn't been excited about expansion in general as it affects them.

OU and Texas were homeruns because:

2 historic all-sport programs
money
brought back to life some rivalries
is a driver to a 9 game conference schedule and a faster rotation

That said, we're still almost 2 years into the debate to sell the 9 game schedule to all of the existing members and that's with the no brainer adds to the conference.

Now you bring in 2 or 4 more programs you are looking at one or more of:

less money or at best, break even
affects rivalries less since some of the big ones (UF/FSU and USC/Clemson) have never stopped
conflict over whether to play even more conference games and/or slower rotation

Each add should be an even bigger gain than the last because big conferences are unwieldy. So programs that would be attractive to a 12 team conference are naturally less so to a 16 team conference.

gatormarc · May 16, 2023

2 minutes ago, statsman said:

I think the SEC really does have a block against adding schools from states that already have members (unless they’re clearly that state’s flagship). Too bad for FSU, and Miami. Maybe too bad for Clemson.

If I were FSU or Clemson, I wouldn't be attaching myself to Miami. They're an anchor.

Sandbagging Steve · May 16, 2023

I looked at the realignment posts before Bob Thompson and the posts after Bob Thompson and it's amazing what a little brainwashing can do to the human population. A complete reversal of program evaluation on message boards across the country. Night and day difference. All because one guy released some propaganda to give his sources leverage. We see it every day in CR and it's very effective. Humans can't help but allow themselves to be brainwashed and influenced by people of a certain status. They forget many times that person has an agenda.

We see it in recruiting every year and fanatics never learn their lesson.

There are way too many basic assumptions using way too narrow a focus to determine program value. This wasn't happening before Bob Thompson. Now everyone is looking for numbers that back up Bob Thompson and they are forgetting all the variables that determine valuation. Value investing is a long-term strategy.

Many of these are very easy to predict.

You aren't giving some of these teams nearly enough credit. Whether the program is at a low/high point on the field triggers a mistake of value. The conference opponents (the schedule) can and do create a mistake of value. The channels played on (because of the conference or current team standing) gives off a mistake of value.

You aren't giving these teams a fair value. It's a long-term investment and the new conference creates a brand new value.

Sandbagging Steve · May 16, 2023

The long-term goal isn't about a conference. It's about consolidating brands to create rules by like-minded programs and create a much more exciting brand of football. The long-term goal is to take the schedule out of the hands of the universities in order to maximize profits by playing more conference opponents. It just takes time to get there because there are a lot of different agendas with some say in the process. When push comes to shove, the bluebloods, commissioners and TV execs always get their way.

Sandbagging Steve · May 16, 2023

33 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

The economics absolutely do not support the B1G going to 24 or 28 teams. I think we are headed to 3 power conferences of 18-20 in football, plus possibly a 4th "power conference lite" that arises out of the rubble of the left behinds plus some of the other fringe schools being talked about in all of the realignment discussions. That would seem to make more sense rather than schools like Duke, Georgia Tech, Utah, Arizona State, etc going down to G5. Their alumni bases would not tolerate that.

Sure it does. My post wasn't a short-term move. I'm looking down the road. As I stated in my post, the B1G started realignment over 30 years ago with a long-term plan of building a coast-to-coast conference of like-minded teams with continuous borders. That's what started all of this. That is the "mission statement" of conference realignment.

First, Georgia Tech, Utah and ASU are never going any lower than the Big 12. And UNC is a slam dunk to the P2.

B1G, with Notre Dame, will have 4 of the 5 BEHEMOTHS of college athletics. I don't think some of you realized just how much those 5 are worth to the landscape of college athletics. B1G brings in as much or more money than the SEC despite having several deadweight teams in their conference. That's because of tOSU, Michigan and PSU. Once they add Notre Dame, to go along with the entire LA metroplex, they can afford to add some filler programs to round out their long-term plan of a coast-to-coast conference with continuous borders.

I didn't write that post as if it were about to happen. As I said, Colorado and Arizona would have to rehab their programs in the Big 12 first. It's not a slam dunk all those teams will be added to the B1G on the first round of ACC realignment. And if UNC/UVA goes to the SEC, the B1G's dream is dead in the water...until the SEC and B1G consolidate their brands.

Hurtlocker · May 16, 2023

2 hours ago, hook me said:

While that's true, there are some that get a LOT closer than others to at least breaking even, or have some other positive reason for adding. NCST/Va Tech don't make any sense on any level for the SEC or B1G. They make a lot of sense for the Big 12 or a reformatted ACC. The Rutgers move was a money grab by the B1G & rutgers & has worked out well for them while being a complete waste of money for the networks. That worked 10 years ago, but with all the belt-tightening going on at Disney I seriously doubt they're going to pony up the money for those two. On top of that, the SEC doesn't seem too keen on adding schools like NCST & Va Tech considering they wouldn't even take OU without UT coming along as well & it seems entirely unlikely that they would watch UNC, UVA, & ND run to the B1G & follow that up with little brothers that no one cares about.

Not to the B1G and SEC, to the Big 12 maybe. By FSU's own consultants they're currently worth $40m. That's around 40% less.

The best way to look at it is compare against who just moved. Is VTech bringing the same brand power as Texas? No, so they're not breaking even. There are no properties in the ACC that add up to that level of value. None. FSU the biggest football brand in the ACC, even after Clemson's titles, and they're below Oklahoma in brand value.

Any ACC move to the B1G or SEC is not for short term gain. It's to secure something for the future.

The only conference who can add to their current contract by addition with this chaos is the Big 12 and maybe, MAYBE, the B1G with Notre Dame.

LTbear · May 16, 2023

9 minutes ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

Once they add Notre Dame, to go along with the entire LA metroplex, they can afford to add some filler programs to round out their long-term plan of a coast-to-coast conference with continuous borders.

They will not add "fillers" that don't bring in just as much new money for the sake of making a map look pretty.

Sandbagging Steve · May 16, 2023

Just now, LTbear said:

They will not add "fillers" that don't bring in just as much new money for the sake of making a map look pretty.

They've already done it and they'll do it again. You've already been proven wrong (Rutgers/Maryland/Nebraska). The big programs can carry a certain amount of slightly lesser programs. I revived Colorado playing big brands in the B1G close to Denver isn't losing money for the B1G. B1G brands playing in Atlanta aren't losing money for the conference. Notre Dame is going to want a national conference as well and they can carry at least 2 (maybe 3) teams with their value. The less percentage of B1G games that includes Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, and Rutgers creates some value for the conference.

You are forgetting that not only will these teams need to rehab their programs, but:

1. Large B1G teams will be playing them, which drives big TV viewership.

2. That the B1G owns a large stake in the B1GN.

3. That Notre Dame is a BEHEMOTH and they will want some of those teams in the conference (Stanford, GT, Miami and national schedule).

4. More conference teams allow them to force 10, 11, or 12 conference games on their peers, which increases revenue.

5. This was their whole reason for expanding in the first place!!

Sandbagging Steve · May 16, 2023

14 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Not to the B1G and SEC, to the Big 12 maybe. By FSU's own consultants they're currently worth $40m. That's around 40% less.

The best way to look at it is compare against who just moved. Is VTech bringing the same brand power as Texas? No, so they're not breaking even. There are no properties in the ACC that add up to that level of value. None. FSU the biggest football brand in the ACC, even after Clemson's titles, and they're below Oklahoma in brand value.

Any ACC move to the B1G or SEC is not for short term gain. It's to secure something for the future.

The only conference who can add to their current contract by addition with this chaos is the Big 12 and maybe, MAYBE, the B1G with Notre Dame.

Very true, but the $40 million is what FSU is worth in a losing decade and playing in a terrible conference against terrible opponents. In other words, as you said, it's a long-term play and we know they're really worth way more than that in the long run. Take their average winning/losing over a 50-year period, and look at what the viewership would be when they play with that average record against the type of teams they would play in the B1G/SEC and that's the long-term value. That's how these decisions will be made.

LTbear · May 16, 2023

18 minutes ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

They've already done it and they'll do it again. You've already been proven wrong (Rutgers/Maryland/Nebraska). The big programs can carry a certain amount of slightly lesser programs. I revived Colorado playing big brands in the B1G close to Denver isn't losing money for the B1G. B1G brands playing in Atlanta aren't losing money for the conference. Notre Dame is going to want a national conference as well and they can carry at least 2 (maybe 3) teams with their value.

Rutgers and Maryland weren't fillers via the revenue model when they were added. Notre Dame does not give a rat's ass about playing in Arizona (which is required to create a coast to coast conference with continuous borders, unless you believe Boise State or UNLV is going to get the mod...). And the B1G is not going to add UA or ASU just to create a pretty "continuous" map.

Edited May 16, 2023 by LTbear

camel at sea · May 16, 2023

A relatively sensible path forward:

1. Big 12 takes the 4C (maybe they get spooked by the ACC implosion talk)
2. Big Ten adds Oregon/Washington after the 4C move
3. SEC adds FSU/Clemson at some point
4. ACC - now stable b/c nobody wants the rest of their membership - adds Big 12's eastern flank
5. Big 12 adds more from out west.

The Big Ten and SEC are both at 18. The Big 12 and ACC are both around 16. It's not perfect, but it's pretty rivalry-friendly. Other than the B1G's western schools (their long-time Rose Bowl partners), the geography of each conference makes sense. We don't have any giant football brands sharing a conference with small brands anymore (easier media rights negotiations going forward, more stable intra-conference dynamics, etc.)

Sandbagging Steve · May 16, 2023

1 minute ago, LTbear said:

Rutgers and Maryland weren't fillers via the revenue model when they were added. Notre Dame does not give a rat's ass about playing in Arizona (which is required to create a coast to coast conference with continuous borders). And the B1G is not going to add UA or ASU just to create a pretty "continuous" map.

One can argue the B1G was getting the revenue with or without Rutgers.

Many can argue some of the teams I put on my list are worth more to the B1G than Rutgers.

Rutgers and Maryland absolutely are filler programs being propped up by the big brands in the B1G. It's why that model works. B1GN works because the big brands play ball in that conference. It has nothing to do with Rutgers, Maryland, Nebraska or UCLA. Rutgers and Maryland give them a pathway to the ACC all the way down Florida. Nebraska gives them a gateway to the West. That's been one of their plans all along.

It isn't a secret the B1G wants continuous borders if they can pull it off and make it work financially. Like, it's never been a secret that's the desire, whether they can make it work or not is another story.

They want UVA desperately, which is a net loser for the conference. But they won't be because they will be propped up by the big programs in the B1G. Why do they want UVA? Because academics matter to them and mainly because UVA opens up the possibility to UNC, the next state over!

Nowhere did I say anything about Notre Dame wanting to play in Arizona. Where did you get that? You seem mad?

If Arizona were to start winning in football again, with their basketball program, it will be something they absolutely consider. I never said Arizona, Utah or Colorado were going to the B1G, btw.

Sandbagging Steve · May 16, 2023

11 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

A relatively sensible path forward:

1. Big 12 takes the 4C (maybe they get spooked by the ACC implosion talk)
2. Big Ten adds Oregon/Washington after the 4C move
3. SEC adds FSU/Clemson at some point
4. ACC - now stable b/c nobody wants the rest of their membership - adds Big 12's eastern flank
5. Big 12 adds more from out west.

The Big Ten and SEC are both at 18. The Big 12 and ACC are both around 16. It's not perfect, but it's pretty rivalry-friendly. Other than the B1G's western schools (their long-time Rose Bowl partners), the geography of each conference makes sense. We don't have any giant football brands sharing a conference with small brands anymore (easier media rights negotiations going forward, more stable intra-conference dynamics, etc.)

Not a terrible look at it, but...

I can't see UNC staying in that conference if FSU/Clemson leaves for the SEC. And if UNC leaves, UVA is probably going with them.

Short term, the ACC could dissolve and kick out Wake Forest, Duke and Boston College (maybe one more), play a 9-game conference schedule and probably add $10+ million dollars per team to a "new" ACC. It would be a short-term stopgap.

Not a cat · May 16, 2023

Perhaps this is covered in one of the 545 other pages I'm not going to read, but how was UCLA able to just leave Cal Berkeley behind like that? You'd think the UC system with 2 crown jewels would make sure to protect each one. The answer may be as simple as the UC system doesn't give a shit about football, but damn this is going to cost Berkeley a lot of money going forward.

Sign In

Realignment talk not going away

Recommended Posts

Laxtonto 13013

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Hiphopopotamos

MAUFRAIS

jofus

Posted Images

Evil Bill Obrien 3493

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Trojan Man 429

Link to comment

Share on other sites

gatormarc 937

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Sandbagging Steve 982

Link to comment

Share on other sites

FartingDreamer 138

Link to comment

Share on other sites

closetohumping 17776

Link to comment

Share on other sites

CustersDoctor 585

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Sandbagging Steve 982

‘The Next Wave Is Coming’: Expansion, Realignment and What’s at Stake for Power 5 Conferences

The ACC

The Big 12 and Pac-12

The Big Ten and SEC

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Texas Wahoo 3627

‘The Next Wave Is Coming’: Expansion, Realignment and What’s at Stake for Power 5 Conferences

The ACC

The Big 12 and Pac-12

The Big Ten and SEC

Link to comment

Share on other sites

TheContractor 70

‘The Next Wave Is Coming’: Expansion, Realignment and What’s at Stake for Power 5 Conferences

The ACC

The Big 12 and Pac-12

The Big Ten and SEC

Link to comment

Share on other sites

billfromlaketravis 11783

Link to comment

Share on other sites

billfromlaketravis 11783

‘The Next Wave Is Coming’: Expansion, Realignment and What’s at Stake for Power 5 Conferences

The ACC

The Big 12 and Pac-12

The Big Ten and SEC

Link to comment

Share on other sites

TKthunder2 5058

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Sandbagging Steve 982

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Sandbagging Steve 982

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Hurtlocker 2219

‘The Next Wave Is Coming’: Expansion, Realignment and What’s at Stake for Power 5 Conferences

The ACC

The Big 12 and Pac-12