Oliver Luck to Texas?

[BlazeOrange]

It is absolutely in the best interest of the Big 12 and ACC to be the fifth conference and trail by yards, than it is to be the fourth conference and trail by miles.

That is an interesting take and one that I hadn't really considered. The variable to consider is the implications of the upcoming playoff system. If things stay as they will be at the onset, having a big 5 vying for the four playoff slots will generally mean that either the B12 or ACC champion will be left out. I forget if there are rules to prevent a conference from sending two teams that would result in two of the major conferences not being represented, but don't think there are any such stipulations. Still, that's a relatively fair competition that is less risky for each conference.

Now, if one conference or the other got absorbed by the PAC/B1G/SEC, with the survivor getting the scraps, it could go two ways:
1) Status Quo Playoff System - more risk that one of the Big 3 would get a second spot over the ACC/B12 champ, particularly if some of the top teams defected during the realignment period. Hopefully the respective GORs would require a conference to either stay intact or completely fold, but someone would likely test it.

2) Modified Playoff System - if the powers embrace the symmetry of the four major conferences and the Big 4 becomes the BIG 4, with only the conference champions qualifying for the playoffs. This would put the surviving 4th conference on par with the rest and be an improvement over the current situation. It wouldn't be long until the field was expanded to 8 teams though, maybe it would even happen immediately: 4 autoqualifiers, one spot reserved for the best of the non-auto conferences, and three at-larges (guess where these would most often come from?). Still a nice place for the survivor, but they will be getting half of the playoff spots (and payouts) than the Big 3 in most years.

 

[CuseLegacy]

Or maybe this guy will get the job.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...rson+will+interview+for+open+Texas+position./

 

[shantydaze]

According to "The Dude" the Big XII Expansion Committee explored this with FOX and ESPN, and they determined that neither television partner would increase their television contract enough to even make this revenue neutral per school. Apparently each Big XII school would earn something like $4-5 million per year less by doing this even with a Championship Game. The Big XII contract is driven by ratings and not cable subscribers. Apparently, UCF and Cincinnati don't drive ratings. So apparently this idea has been nixed.

Will Oliver Luck keep working on it? Who knows?

If the XII expands it will be due to the playoffs and perception that the XII champion is inferior to the champion of one of the other Big 5 conferences due to the lack of a CCG. If this does not become an issue, then I do not see expansion for expansion's sake.

 

[Lou_C]

The Big Ten basically was trying to block the ACC from being the primary conference in the East and to claim that territory for the BTN. They also got worried when Notre Dame joined the ACC about Penn State looking at the ACC. Will Rutgers and Maryland keep Penn State happy? Who knows? What is happening is that demographically the high school football talent is becoming very concentrated in the Atlantic South (i.e. Florida, Georgia, the Carolinas, Virginia). ESPN ran a segment about it. Pitt, Notre Dame, Syracuse, and Boston College will be playing football in those areas now very frequently and have the opportunity to build relationships with the high school coaches in those areas. It can only help with recruiting.

Penn State will still be playing in Iowa, Nebraska, Indiana, Michigan, and Illinois where the high school talent is not located. Maryland will now be doing the same. This is the real demographic challenge facing the Big Ten regarding football. We are already seeing a talent gap between the Big Ten and the SEC as well as the southern ACC schools. Nebraska is feeling it Big Time. They have lost their Texas recruiting base. This is going to widen across the rest of the ACC as long as the ACC can keep good coaches across the board. The ACC needs to continue to improve.

The Big XII will survive as long as Texas and Oklahoma want to be in the Big XII. They get their talent out of Texas. If one of them decides to leave, the Big XII becomes the American Athletic Conference. What does Oliver Luck want to do? Who knows?

The ACC needs to move forward with its television network. I worry that the ACC will start to see a disadvantage in its Olympic Sports recruiting if the Big Ten, SEC, and PAC 12 show theirs on television and the ACC doesn't because of a lack of interest by ESPN. College Athletes like to be on Television. Olympic Sports along with Baseball, Softball, Soccer, Volleyball, and Lacrosse will make up much of the programming of a television network. Football is the bigger fan interest sport, but the others would be the fill in.

Agree with a lot of this. I truly think the B1G has an issue in terms of footprint talent. At some point, all the money in the world isn't going to matter. Ohio State and Michigan will always be able to recruit nationally, and will get the best of the footprint, but I just don't see any way their footprint supports the athletes needed. This is something nobody's talking about, and it's probably controversial or politically incorrect, but it's not just about total population or weather. The cultural "college football is king" advantage is going to be multiplied exponentially in coming years due to injury concerns for football. I think you've got to really anticipate fewer participants overall, and look at what part of the country is most likely to put those fears out of mind to see Johnny be a Friday night star. I just don't see any way that the B1G footprint has anything more than a precipitously declining portion of the talent base.

I'm not sure I agree about the television network as much as I once did. I'm not against it by any means, I just think that the ACC needs to be cautious about it. They need to really make sure they're getting paid, because once you're in with ESPN on a network, you're kind of married to them. If it's not financial gangbusters, I'm not sure it's worth giving up total free agency at the end of the contract, and the leverage that comes with that. If it's going to take 2-3 years to launch, then 2-3 years to show any revenue, and then it's a million or two a year per team, you're almost to the end of the contract before any real cash is rolling in. I don't know if that's worth giving up the leverage. At the end of the contract, if you want to do a network, you can build a heck of a lot more equity into it than you could now, or what the SEC has been able to do.

Right now, there will be three conference networks, one that is 50% owned by the conference, one that is 100% owned by the conference, and one that is 0% owned by the conference. I'm not sure the market has decided which is the best model, but if we launch a network under our current deal, the 0% model (SEC) will be the only one to choose from. In 10-12 years or so, we will know which is best, or even the no network model is best. There's just so much uncertainty in the cable/content industry right now that unless there is really big bucks attached to it in the short term, I'm not sure we're not better off being total free agents at the end of the contract.

 

[Btstimpy]

Agree with a lot of this. I truly think the B1G has an issue in terms of footprint talent. At some point, all the money in the world isn't going to matter. Ohio State and Michigan will always be able to recruit nationally, and will get the best of the footprint, but I just don't see any way their footprint supports the athletes needed. This is something nobody's talking about, and it's probably controversial or politically incorrect, but it's not just about total population or weather. The cultural "college football is king" advantage is going to be multiplied exponentially in coming years due to injury concerns for football. I think you've got to really anticipate fewer participants overall, and look at what part of the country is most likely to put those fears out of mind to see Johnny be a Friday night star. I just don't see any way that the B1G footprint has anything more than a precipitously declining portion of the talent base.

I'm not sure I agree about the television network as much as I once did. I'm not against it by any means, I just think that the ACC needs to be cautious about it. They need to really make sure they're getting paid, because once you're in with ESPN on a network, you're kind of married to them. If it's not financial gangbusters, I'm not sure it's worth giving up total free agency at the end of the contract, and the leverage that comes with that. If it's going to take 2-3 years to launch, then 2-3 years to show any revenue, and then it's a million or two a year per team, you're almost to the end of the contract before any real cash is rolling in. I don't know if that's worth giving up the leverage. At the end of the contract, if you want to do a network, you can build a heck of a lot more equity into it than you could now, or what the SEC has been able to do.

Right now, there will be three conference networks, one that is 50% owned by the conference, one that is 100% owned by the conference, and one that is 0% owned by the conference. I'm not sure the market has decided which is the best model, but if we launch a network under our current deal, the 0% model (SEC) will be the only one to choose from. In 10-12 years or so, we will know which is best, or even the no network model is best. There's just so much uncertainty in the cable/content industry right now that unless there is really big bucks attached to it in the short term, I'm not sure we're not better off being total free agents at the end of the contract.

The main reason to have the Television Network is to maximize revenue of course. The other is to get visibility to the some of the other sports that aren't traditional revenue sports like Football and Basketball. With the Big Ten, SEC, and PAC 12 moving all of their extra content to their respective networks, ESPN might decide to put more of the ACC content on ESPNU for things like soccer, lacrossse, baseball, softball, wrestling, track, swimming, etc. ESPNU could turn into a defacto ACC Network. As long as the ACC gets paid, that could work. And the ACC digital network would continue to expand. That's going to be the next generation medium anyway.