ACC, PAC-12, and BIG alliance / conference realignment

[SUMBA]

Our brand doesn’t suck our brand is inconsistent, we need to be consistently good to occasionally a great team. That would help change the narrative

As a person who knows a little about brands, I can tell you that if a brand is inconsistent, it sucks. In a branding sense, being consistently bad is much better than being inconsistent.

 

[Newhouser]

Lets assume the next 5 years will determine the long term future of college sports. Trump listened to Saben and I believe that there is going to legislation approved within the next year no more than two that is going to level the playing field.
Lets also assume Syracuse is on a major upswing. These two things happening at the same time are very good for our future.
Fran is as Hot a coach as there is. A rising star. We are going to have incredible exposure this season based on our schedule. If we can be competitive and hold our own this year I believe that 26 could be a year that we make some real noise . If so and if legislation is on the horizon at the same time we might just catch a wave. Timing as they say is everything.

Saban - the same guy who wanted to eliminate the hurry up offense because he couldn't stop it, and didn't want players paid because his advantage would be eliminated.

Something has to be adjusted but I'd rather it not be lead by anyone near 80 years old who in my opinion quit when the playing field, he is supposedly now pushing for, leveled off in his world.

 

[baggerbob]

I’ve said for a long time now that in the end, Government was going to get involved. Just to many teams in prominent states will be left out which will push it. I’m not a fan of government involvement usually but this time it is inevitable.

And when commissioners, and TV executives, and others are sitting in front of congress committees. And facing subpoena's for documents, phone calls and other items, all it takes is one recording or document suggesting collusion of any kind to have the Government appoint someone in charge of everything.

 

[orangefog]

And when commissioners, and TV executives, and others are sitting in front of congress committees. And facing subpoena's for documents, phone calls and other items, all it takes is one recording or document suggesting collusion of any kind to have the Government appoint someone in charge of everything.

How about Elon?

 

[Toga]

And when commissioners, and TV executives, and others are sitting in front of congress committees. And facing subpoena's for documents, phone calls and other items, all it takes is one recording or document suggesting collusion of any kind to have the Government appoint someone in charge of everything.

 

[SU94]

This is a conversation that's been had on these boards for a long time but it bears repeating that major college fan bases generally rely on non-alums to fill stadiums and provide eyeballs for tv. This is often equally the case for public schools. Maybe more so for publics if the college team is the surrogate pro team and source of local pride for many in a state, like Alabama for example.

Syracuse may be a private school but it has a huge advantage compared to other privates in that there is no public school that can challenge it for fan loyalty in the state. Even taking the NY metro area out of the equation where there is little in the way of state pride or sustained college sports fandom, the upstate population is greater than that of a number of SEC and southern ACC states. This, I believe, is why SU has always been on the radar for major conference leaders during the various realignments going back to 1989. I don't see that changing in the future.

SU has a lot of non-alum fans, myself included. The stadium is small but SU does well on tv. The school has had sustained periods of national prominence in both major sports in recent history. Not many private schools can make that claim, Notre Dame included. In a national superconference scenario, I think the marketing experts will ensure that we are very much in the conversation.

One good mini sign that I picked up on in the last week:

In this new 16-team CFP structure, ESPN reportedly (so I am not sure of this) has some reservations about so many of the berths coming from two leagues (even though, ironically, they had a heavy hand in creating these monsters). ESPN's stance appears top be that the CFP as is would essentially block our significant portions of the country, which will not yield ratings maximizations).

So, at least someone of significance (ESPN) at the table is pushing back (it appears) that this is becoming too much of a SEC/B1G invitational with 5-6 wild card teams thrown in.

In the end, I think that bodes well for schools like SU. Maybe we get a third auto berth for the ACC (and B12) or perhaps in the major restructure that seems inevitable will include some geographic balance. I mean, to ignore the Northeast (and Southwest/Southern California) would -- in my estimation -- be severely detrimental for the CFP.

 

[baggerbob]

One good mini sign that I picked up on in the last week:

In this new 16-team CFP structure, ESPN reportedly (so I am not sure of this) has some reservations about so many of the berths coming from two leagues (even though, ironically, they had a heavy hand in creating these monsters). ESPN's stance appears top be that the CFP as is would essentially block our significant portions of the country, which will not yield ratings maximizations).

So, at least someone of significance (ESPN) at the table is pushing back (it appears) that this is becoming too much of a SEC/B1G invitational with 5-6 wild card teams thrown in.

In the end, I think that bodes well for schools like SU. Maybe we get a third auto berth for the ACC (and B12) or perhaps in the major restructure that seems inevitable will include some geographic balance. I mean, to ignore the Northeast (and Southwest/Southern California) would -- in my estimation -- be severely detrimental for the CFP.

And ESPN is probably starting to hear rumblings in DC, which might get congress involved.

 

[HtownOrange]

One good mini sign that I picked up on in the last week:

In this new 16-team CFP structure, ESPN reportedly (so I am not sure of this) has some reservations about so many of the berths coming from two leagues (even though, ironically, they had a heavy hand in creating these monsters). ESPN's stance appears top be that the CFP as is would essentially block our significant portions of the country, which will not yield ratings maximizations).

So, at least someone of significance (ESPN) at the table is pushing back (it appears) that this is becoming too much of a SEC/B1G invitational with 5-6 wild card teams thrown in.

In the end, I think that bodes well for schools like SU. Maybe we get a third auto berth for the ACC (and B12) or perhaps in the major restructure that seems inevitable will include some geographic balance. I mean, to ignore the Northeast (and Southwest/Southern California) would -- in my estimation -- be severely detrimental for the CFP.

To add to your assessment:

- ESPN has argued that Stanford, Cal and SMU are only allowed credit for their DMA. This argument defeats that having a team in each state warrants credit for the entire state. The argument is that times have changed and the cable industry does not support the position that any in-state school carries the entire state. Essentially, ESPN is treating the SEC differently than the ACC and must either "correct" this with the SEC or allow the entire states of California and Texas to be carried by at least one team within the state. Example: UT is in Austin and TAMU is in College Station, maybe 1.5MM people within the DMA, while SMU carries all of the DFW DMA (likewise, U of Houston carries all of the Htown DMA) more than 4X the DMA that the SEC carries within the State of Texas. This sets of a major legal battle that ESPN likely does not want to fight. Especially as CFB fans not directly associated with one team (i.e. alumni, donor, parent of a student, etc.), will often watch several teams within their region (think of a person who enjoys football living anywhere around DFW, Htown, Austin, and San Antonio, may watch UT, TAMU, LSU, Arkansas, OU, UofH, etc.). Fandom for each team is far more difficult to measure than the simplistic "who is your favorite team?" approach.

- As you note that large segments of the country are simply ignored by the two super-conference solution. CFB fans attached to a school are loyal to their school. They are ore likely to dedicate time for watching their school than watching ND v. Alabama, or Michigan v. Oklahoma. Further, the loyal fans are more likely to keep closer tabs on close competitors/rivals of their team than the super-conference games. The SEC commissioner has already addressed the issue with the concern that there are not sufficient schools for the super-conferences to simply walk away. CFB fans do NOT want an NFL lite, they want CFB to remain different from the NFL. If SU and BC are out of the super-conferences, you have ignored 10% of the nation (approx. 33MM people). Likewise, PSU may carry more of PA fans, but leaving Pitt out of the super-conference alienates another approx. 5MM. Texas, noted above would only have representation of 1.5MM fans in a 30MM person state, or potentially 28.5MM. SC fans would be heavily ignored as USC east (the real one, not the New Jersey pretender) are not as numerous as Clemson fans. Likewise, tOSU only covers the Columbus DMA, all other fans are ignored, say 3-6MM people (25%-50-%). California, Florida, Jersey (Rutgers does not carry its own state as many Jersey fans could not care less about Rutgers). The list goes on.

- The threat of governmental action is real. Ignoring major states and and the many fly-over states (for lack of a better term) each have two senators. The super-conferences would need at least 26 states to control any vote and more likely 30-35 as some senators are likely to have an affinity for other teams than those represented by the two proposed super-conferences. It's worse when you get into the House because of the divided loyalties; I.e. an Ohio State grad may represent a seat in Cincinnati but he/she may have to vote for a rule/statute that benefits UC over tOSU. The B1G represents 14 states, four being duplicated. The SEC represents 12 states, with four being duplicated. Combined, that is 26 states, a few of which have divided loyalties with P4 conferences and more so with all FBS teams.

My guess (which means the guess and $10 can get you a cup of coffee): Private corporations really don't want government oversite and prefer to govern themselves, its easier and cheaper. ESPN and conferences are private corporations. However, it takes self-assessment and self-discipline to overcome greed. The fact that the SEC and ESPN have already expressed some concern about the matter indicates they do not want government oversite. This indicates that they are now realizing that government oversite is nearer than ever before (not necessarily imminent). It is likely that Fox and the B1G are in roughly the same stage. They are trying to figure out how to overcome their greed, at least sufficient to avoid government oversite. I don't think anyone clearly knows the answer, but as has been discussed on this site a minimum of 60 teams or more will be necessary if a breakaway league is truly desired. I think it is a positive at this point in time but there are too many variables to to be resolved before a final resolution is resolved.

 

[baggerbob]

To add to your assessment:

- ESPN has argued that Stanford, Cal and SMU are only allowed credit for their DMA. This argument defeats that having a team in each state warrants credit for the entire state. The argument is that times have changed and the cable industry does not support the position that any in-state school carries the entire state. Essentially, ESPN is treating the SEC differently than the ACC and must either "correct" this with the SEC or allow the entire states of California and Texas to be carried by at least one team within the state. Example: UT is in Austin and TAMU is in College Station, maybe 1.5MM people within the DMA, while SMU carries all of the DFW DMA (likewise, U of Houston carries all of the Htown DMA) more than 4X the DMA that the SEC carries within the State of Texas. This sets of a major legal battle that ESPN likely does not want to fight. Especially as CFB fans not directly associated with one team (i.e. alumni, donor, parent of a student, etc.), will often watch several teams within their region (think of a person who enjoys football living anywhere around DFW, Htown, Austin, and San Antonio, may watch UT, TAMU, LSU, Arkansas, OU, UofH, etc.). Fandom for each team is far more difficult to measure than the simplistic "who is your favorite team?" approach.

- As you note that large segments of the country are simply ignored by the two super-conference solution. CFB fans attached to a school are loyal to their school. They are ore likely to dedicate time for watching their school than watching ND v. Alabama, or Michigan v. Oklahoma. Further, the loyal fans are more likely to keep closer tabs on close competitors/rivals of their team than the super-conference games. The SEC commissioner has already addressed the issue with the concern that there are not sufficient schools for the super-conferences to simply walk away. CFB fans do NOT want an NFL lite, they want CFB to remain different from the NFL. If SU and BC are out of the super-conferences, you have ignored 10% of the nation (approx. 33MM people). Likewise, PSU may carry more of PA fans, but leaving Pitt out of the super-conference alienates another approx. 5MM. Texas, noted above would only have representation of 1.5MM fans in a 30MM person state, or potentially 28.5MM. SC fans would be heavily ignored as USC east (the real one, not the New Jersey pretender) are not as numerous as Clemson fans. Likewise, tOSU only covers the Columbus DMA, all other fans are ignored, say 3-6MM people (25%-50-%). California, Florida, Jersey (Rutgers does not carry its own state as many Jersey fans could not care less about Rutgers). The list goes on.

- The threat of governmental action is real. Ignoring major states and and the many fly-over states (for lack of a better term) each have two senators. The super-conferences would need at least 26 states to control any vote and more likely 30-35 as some senators are likely to have an affinity for other teams than those represented by the two proposed super-conferences. It's worse when you get into the House because of the divided loyalties; I.e. an Ohio State grad may represent a seat in Cincinnati but he/she may have to vote for a rule/statute that benefits UC over tOSU. The B1G represents 14 states, four being duplicated. The SEC represents 12 states, with four being duplicated. Combined, that is 26 states, a few of which have divided loyalties with P4 conferences and more so with all FBS teams.

My guess (which means the guess and $10 can get you a cup of coffee): Private corporations really don't want government oversite and prefer to govern themselves, its easier and cheaper. ESPN and conferences are private corporations. However, it takes self-assessment and self-discipline to overcome greed. The fact that the SEC and ESPN have already expressed some concern about the matter indicates they do not want government oversite. This indicates that they are now realizing that government oversite is nearer than ever before (not necessarily imminent). It is likely that Fox and the B1G are in roughly the same stage. They are trying to figure out how to overcome their greed, at least sufficient to avoid government oversite. I don't think anyone clearly knows the answer, but as has been discussed on this site a minimum of 60 teams or more will be necessary if a breakaway league is truly desired. I think it is a positive at this point in time but there are too many variables to to be resolved before a final resolution is resolved.

And you better believe if the government gets involved TV contracts will end up much more evenly distributed.
There would end up being a National Commisser Appointed by someone in the Government to make all decisions.

 

[WoadBlue]

One good mini sign that I picked up on in the last week:

In this new 16-team CFP structure, ESPN reportedly (so I am not sure of this) has some reservations about so many of the berths coming from two leagues (even though, ironically, they had a heavy hand in creating these monsters). ESPN's stance appears top be that the CFP as is would essentially block our significant portions of the country, which will not yield ratings maximizations).

So, at least someone of significance (ESPN) at the table is pushing back (it appears) that this is becoming too much of a SEC/B1G invitational with 5-6 wild card teams thrown in.

In the end, I think that bodes well for schools like SU. Maybe we get a third auto berth for the ACC (and B12) or perhaps in the major restructure that seems inevitable will include some geographic balance. I mean, to ignore the Northeast (and Southwest/Southern California) would -- in my estimation -- be severely detrimental for the CFP.

Ignore Southern CA? Both SC and UCLA are in the BT.

Only if they feel real pressure will they back off and allow the ACC and maybe Big 12 to have each at least 2 Auto bids to a 16 team playoff. The key is the smaller the number of schools involved in what will be for football certainly a closed no division - no games vs MAC or Sunbelt, for example - and the fewer states involved, the more that House and Senate will see people rise up to demand some Federal oversight.

I think One thing that would be a given among many such politician types is to wonder why the new Pac cannot be merged with the Big 12 so that at least that name is saved, along with making certain that another state or 2 is represented. The Pac now has 7 for football, but only 1 new state (ID). So perhaps such talks could get the Pac added to a LARGE Big 12, that also adds New Mexico and maybe UNLV - anger state or 2.

Plus we know that Yormark really wants UConn.

Fie the ACC, I think the key is that it must act gressiveoy to maximize its abuiklity to have as large a TV deal as possible. The BT and SEC will not give up their own TV deals to share equally with any other league that gets to be in the Top Tier and so have really access to the Playoffs. So unless the ACC improves its TV deal money nicely it will keep falling behind BY and SEC which will totally dominate the playoffs, save for an occasional great Clemson or FSU and maybe Miami team.

To improve its TV deal, the ACC must drop some dead weight and replace with schools that better fit the proven formula for CFB football wealth and power. And the ACC must be large enough to easily play 10 league games. SEC and BT seem dead set of playing each often OFTEN to make the case that only their teams have the strength of schedule to deserve the Playoffs.

 

[WoadBlue]

And you better believe if the government gets involved TV contracts will end up much more evenly distributed.
There would end up being a National Commisser Appointed by someone in the Government to make all decisions.

Nit likely. BT has been dictating to midwestern politicians since nearly its founding. SEC is now like god in most SEC states. They can be forced to be fair about playoffs and playoff money. But they will not give up their right to have much richer TV deals for regular season. They will fight that tooth and nail.

 

[baggerbob]

Nit likely. BT has been dictating to midwestern politicians since nearly its founding. SEC is now like god in most SEC states. They can be forced to be fair about playoffs and playoff money. But they will not give up their right to have much richer TV deals for regular season. They will fight that tooth and nail.

They don't have enough votes in congress to stop anything. There still is a dislike of the Southeast in a large part of the country.

 

[HtownOrange]

They don't have enough votes in congress to stop anything. There still is a dislike of the Southeast in a large part of the country.

He's a troll fanboy for UNC. He thinks politicians in NY, CA, PA, OH, MI, VA, et al. actually care what politicians in in other states care about. Politicians care about their continued respective representation of their constituencies. Sure, politicians know how to align with each other but this won't be a party issue. States like TX, TN, SC, FL, and many more, will be more divided in their alignment than he imagines. I think this part factors in to the SEC and ESPN positions.

 

[kcsu]

To add to your assessment:

- ESPN has argued that Stanford, Cal and SMU are only allowed credit for their DMA. This argument defeats that having a team in each state warrants credit for the entire state. The argument is that times have changed and the cable industry does not support the position that any in-state school carries the entire state. Essentially, ESPN is treating the SEC differently than the ACC and must either "correct" this with the SEC or allow the entire states of California and Texas to be carried by at least one team within the state. Example: UT is in Austin and TAMU is in College Station, maybe 1.5MM people within the DMA, while SMU carries all of the DFW DMA (likewise, U of Houston carries all of the Htown DMA) more than 4X the DMA that the SEC carries within the State of Texas. This sets of a major legal battle that ESPN likely does not want to fight. Especially as CFB fans not directly associated with one team (i.e. alumni, donor, parent of a student, etc.), will often watch several teams within their region (think of a person who enjoys football living anywhere around DFW, Htown, Austin, and San Antonio, may watch UT, TAMU, LSU, Arkansas, OU, UofH, etc.). Fandom for each team is far more difficult to measure than the simplistic "who is your favorite team?" approach.

- As you note that large segments of the country are simply ignored by the two super-conference solution. CFB fans attached to a school are loyal to their school. They are ore likely to dedicate time for watching their school than watching ND v. Alabama, or Michigan v. Oklahoma. Further, the loyal fans are more likely to keep closer tabs on close competitors/rivals of their team than the super-conference games. The SEC commissioner has already addressed the issue with the concern that there are not sufficient schools for the super-conferences to simply walk away. CFB fans do NOT want an NFL lite, they want CFB to remain different from the NFL. If SU and BC are out of the super-conferences, you have ignored 10% of the nation (approx. 33MM people). Likewise, PSU may carry more of PA fans, but leaving Pitt out of the super-conference alienates another approx. 5MM. Texas, noted above would only have representation of 1.5MM fans in a 30MM person state, or potentially 28.5MM. SC fans would be heavily ignored as USC east (the real one, not the New Jersey pretender) are not as numerous as Clemson fans. Likewise, tOSU only covers the Columbus DMA, all other fans are ignored, say 3-6MM people (25%-50-%). California, Florida, Jersey (Rutgers does not carry its own state as many Jersey fans could not care less about Rutgers). The list goes on.

- The threat of governmental action is real. Ignoring major states and and the many fly-over states (for lack of a better term) each have two senators. The super-conferences would need at least 26 states to control any vote and more likely 30-35 as some senators are likely to have an affinity for other teams than those represented by the two proposed super-conferences. It's worse when you get into the House because of the divided loyalties; I.e. an Ohio State grad may represent a seat in Cincinnati but he/she may have to vote for a rule/statute that benefits UC over tOSU. The B1G represents 14 states, four being duplicated. The SEC represents 12 states, with four being duplicated. Combined, that is 26 states, a few of which have divided loyalties with P4 conferences and more so with all FBS teams.

My guess (which means the guess and $10 can get you a cup of coffee): Private corporations really don't want government oversite and prefer to govern themselves, its easier and cheaper. ESPN and conferences are private corporations. However, it takes self-assessment and self-discipline to overcome greed. The fact that the SEC and ESPN have already expressed some concern about the matter indicates they do not want government oversite. This indicates that they are now realizing that government oversite is nearer than ever before (not necessarily imminent). It is likely that Fox and the B1G are in roughly the same stage. They are trying to figure out how to overcome their greed, at least sufficient to avoid government oversite. I don't think anyone clearly knows the answer, but as has been discussed on this site a minimum of 60 teams or more will be necessary if a breakaway league is truly desired. I think it is a positive at this point in time but there are too many variables to to be resolved before a final resolution is resolved.

Excellent overview. Thank you.

 

[SouthernCuse]

Excellent overview. Thank you.

I concur HTown's post was excellent. crediting SMU with the DFW metro area is so far from a replication of reality one wonders about ESPN. DFW is now an 8 million person metropolis, and still growing rapidly. Important market, but SMU isn't even the number one local college team, its TCU and not that close right now.
Where does ESPN think all those Texas Tech grads go after graduation? There ain't no jobs in Lubbock. A big share of Texas grads, aTm grads, Oklahoma, hell even see a lot of Baylor flags on game day (no jobs in Waco either).
SMU does have potential, FW will stay with TCU, but Dallas loves a winner, and lord knows the Cowboys aren't getting it done.
Fun fact, SMU's new president was the Texas president who spearheaded to transition to the SEC. Mean anything? Who knows, we are on page 378 and haven't figured it out yet.

 

[SU68]

And ESPN is probably starting to hear rumblings in DC, which might get congress involved.

Are you talking about the U.S. Congress? We'll all be dead before they take action on anything.

 

[HtownOrange]

Are you talking about the U.S. Congress? We'll all be dead before they take action on anything.

Nonsense! The Congress manages to get lunch and dinner everyday. Schedule long vacations. Milk taxpayers for some serious fringe benefits. It's just the legislative stuff they have issues with.

 

[kcsu]

Change is coming.

 

[baggerbob]

Nonsense! The Congress manages to get lunch and dinner everyday. Schedule long vacations. Milk taxpayers for some serious fringe benefits. It's just the legislative stuff they have issues with.

They don't have to pass any bills . Just get people before committee's, and subpoena records and turn things over to the justice department for possible violation of Antitrust laws.
Fox and ESPN might end up regretting tearing the PAC 10 apart.
The justice department could take years investigating, and at the end penalize everyone starting with the Networks, and then the conferences.

 

[HtownOrange]

They don't have to pass any bills . Just get people before committee's, and subpoena records and turn things over to the justice department for possible violation of Antitrust laws.
Fox and ESPN might end up regretting tearing the PAC 10 apart.
The justice department could take years investigating, and at the end penalize everyone starting with the Networks, and then the conferences.

My guess is that if there is any traction on the hill (Washington) that the CFB parties move quickly. ESPN showed in the FSU lawsuit they want no documents flying around and swapped a solid deal for a bad deal to end all issues.

Ironically, of this moves quick (before FSU can buy their way out of the ACC), they may have done all for nought.

 

[baggerbob]

My guess is that if there is any traction on the hill (Washington) that the CFB parties move quickly. ESPN showed in the FSU lawsuit they want no documents flying around and swapped a solid deal for a bad deal to end all issues.

Ironically, of this moves quick (before FSU can buy their way out of the ACC), they may have done all for nought.

And you know congress loves a big TV show.
All the commissioners and Top TV executives answering questions on TV.
Especially TV contracts and you would see documents no one wanted to see the light of day.
And you know how when congress gets their hands on something it always gets leaked to the press.

 

[HtownOrange]

And you know congress loves a big TV show.
All the commissioners and Top TV executives answering questions on TV.
Especially TV contracts and you would see documents no one wanted to see the light of day.
And you know how when congress gets their hands on something it always gets leaked to the press.

Plus, it is a topic that both parties can safely tackle to break up the annual duties.

 

[Hoo's That]

They don't have to pass any bills . Just get people before committee's, and subpoena records and turn things over to the justice department for possible violation of Antitrust laws.
Fox and ESPN might end up regretting tearing the PAC 10 apart.
The justice department could take years investigating, and at the end penalize everyone starting with the Networks, and then the conferences.

All it really takes is for the right Congresspeople to threaten to do that to get the NCAA, ESPN, and Fox to do something about the growing disparities.

 

[WoadBlue]

They don't have enough votes in congress to stop anything. There still is a dislike of the Southeast in a large part of the country.

That bias may be able to get them somewhere toward harming the SEC's intentions, but not anywhere near taking on the BT. Which is the Old Money version of the SEC, and therefore even more dangerous and set in its desires than the SEC. Taking on the SEC without also taking on the BT will make all this even worse. At least now that pair check each other. National biases cropping only the SEC will make the BT the worst monster possible. It won't even have to pretend to be polite to any other league.

 

[orangefog]

All it really takes is for the right Congresspeople to threaten to do that to get the NCAA, ESPN, and Fox to do something about the growing disparities.

I would love to hear Marjorie Taylor-Greene's thoughts on the matter.