NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Wed Oct 01, 2014 1:26 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:25 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 556
Location: Dallas
(In the interest of full disclosure) I live in Texas and I love Texas.

I think about what would be in the interest of the state of Texas and I think I invariably come up with 1 alignment that best satisfies the state's economic and leadership interests in FBS football.

It requires a revolt from the BCS and a breaking of Jim Delany and the Big 10's hold on the FBS wallet.

What would be required to make it happen.

1) UT, OU, and Arkansas making it known that they will not be a part of any future Big 10 negotiated BCS package, opting out for their own "BCS" Bowls.

2) UT and OU pulling the plug on the Big 12 and forming a new elite conference of state flagships that rival or exceed the PAC 10 in quality.

3) This new conference getting the SEC on board as an equal member in setting the direction of IA for the future.

When the BCS deal nears conclusion, UT needs to start landing committments. The other Big 12 schools don't really have better options if UT, OU, and A&M bolt, so they would be grudgingly on board. All of the lower level conferences would sign on for a better lot. The Gang of 5 would splinter with promises of inclusion of 4 members. The SEC is the trickiest bit due to their committment to history, but I think they could be talked into a "wait and see" stance--- withholding support for the Big 10/Pac 10 alliance blessed BCS until they see what Deloss Dodds and company could deliver. (They aren't in love with being a tool of Yankees either.)

==============
the nuts and bolts
==============


The formation of 3 Texas-based conferences, Allowing ALL FBS Texas schools to fully leverage the TV power of the state.

===================================================

In order to challenge the Big 10 for leadership, UT cannot be a member of an obviously inferior conference. Having Iowa State in the Big XII noticably slots the Big XII as lower in the pecking order than the Big 10. (No knock on Iowa State. This is only perception and money. If it was only about academics, they certainly belong.)

The Big XII has got to go to give UT the bully pulpit to reorganize FBS to their satisfaction.


1) The Top 10 conference

The name doesn't really matter. I chose the Top 10 Conference because it is immediately antagonistic to the PAC 10 and Big 10. It would be a tip of the hat to the Big 8.

1. UT
2. A&M
3. OU
4. Colorado
5. Nebraska
6. Kansas
7. Missouri
8. Arkansas
9. Utah
10. LSU

Financially this conference of state flagships would have a much larger market than the SEC and fewer mouths to feed, so it would be more financially attractive than the SEC. Arkansas would bolt in a second as they clearly miss being in the same conference as their cheif rival UT. With the financial difference between shares as a member of the SEC and UT's new conference tipping towards UT's side, the only hurdle for rejoining UT would be gone. LSU is a lot more debatable. History is very important to LSU, but financial and academic pressure might have them accepting membership. It isn't a deal breaker if LSU stays in the SEC. Utah would join as public and academic powerbrokers in their state would insist on them joining this "new Big 10". BYU would not be allowed to join to protect the conference from being forced into breaking it's criteria (top public academic and athletic flagships only). UT for it's part would promise BYU would be admitted into the "alternative BCS" as a part of an equally exclusive conference.

==============================

That conference?
1) The Magnolia Conference

1) BYU
2) Air Force
3) TCU
4) SMU
5) Rice
6) Baylor
7) Tulsa
8) Tulane
9) Vanderbilt
10) Denver (non-football)
11) St. Louis (non-football)

"Scoff!Scoff! An equally elite conference you say?" Yes, I do. There is a reason CUSA grabbed Tulsa, SMU, and Rice. All schools are in large media markets. This conference would work in much of the same way CUSA did initially --- by generating its TV dollars off native TV markets. The difference? All of the schools involved are academic elites. Here is a breakdown of Native TV Markets and academics.

1) BYU (SLC=875K) ~#79
2) Air Force (C. Springs=325K) Different scale
3) TCU & SMU (DFW=2.435M)#108 & #67
5) Rice (Houston=2.050M) #17
6) Baylor (Waco=315K)#75
7) Tulsa (Tulsa =520K) #91
8) Tulane (NO=600K) #50
9) Vanderbilt (Nashville=965k)#19
10) Denver (non-football) (Denver=1.475M) #85
11) St. Louis (non-football)(St. Louis=1.224M) #82

Vandy is the only school I can see forgoing this arrangement to stay in the SEC, but the SEC cannot offer them rising academic status. The Magnolia could. BYU and the other football private's presidents would look at this as a gold mine. Branding all of these top private universities together would cause all of their academic rankings to go up and would quickly create an elite "buzz". The TV dollars would exceed the MWC or CUSA arrangements. Football elites TCU and BYU would attempt to ride this conference to undefeated records and FBS championship games. They would give the conference immediate football legitimacy. Baylor and Vandy would quickly become football competive again and if the Saints do eventually bolt on New Orleans, Tulane would undergo a huge football resurgance. Competitively, this is in the same football tier the MWC has been at since it's creation. The difference for BYU is no University of Utah in conference and better TV revenue. Basketball schools St. Louis, Tulane, and Tulsa (maybe even Vandy) make this a very nice TV conference in that regard. Other top privates could be offered memberships as well to upgrade. Privately the conference would be encoraged to try to put together 12-14 private University football members and another 4-6 non-football members --- a very tall task considering the footprint. If invited, Emory might bite.

This conference would be given a regular slot in the "alternative BCS" Cotton Bowl (a peace offerring to the alumni of Texas privates for UT killing the SWC and Big XII and an aid in establishing the Magnolia conference "brand"), but could find themselves in the Fiesta Bowl if the western Independents win the conference.

=========================================

Their regular opponents in the Cotton bowl would be the new Southwest conference.

The Southwest conference
Western Division
1) Colorado State
2) Kansas State
3) Iowa State
4) Oklahoma State
5) UNM
6) UAB
7) S. Alabama

Southern Division
8) UTEP
9) UTSA
10) Texas State
11) Houston
12) UNT
13) Texas Tech
14) Memphis

non-football
15) UT-Arlington (non-football)
16) New Orleans (non-football)


This would be a conference of second schools, third schools, and large public schools in major markets. Iowa St. and Kansas State might think themselves above this lot and opt to go as independents, but I think both would realize this is actually a decent conference for them. This would leverage the large number of public schools in the state of Texas and their enormous combined alumni base (combined enrollment of Texas SWC publics=175K) to deliver statewide Texas viewership compairable or better than UT & A&M (combined enrollment=95K) can, making it obviously financially viable for TV. The conference covers the existing Big 12 territory pretty well.

Texas Tech/UNT and Kansas State/OSU would probably dominate their respective divisions in football (and might end up the national title game fairly often --- something that cannot be said in the current status quo); The northern schools and Texas Tech & Memphis in basketball. The conference champion would have an automatic bid in the alternative BCS Cotton Bowl.

===================================================


The ramifications

===================================================


The Top 10 Conference would encourage the SEC to add ACC football powers Florida State, Georgia Tech, and Clemson and then the SEC would be admitted as an equal "power conference" to the Top 10 Conference with an equal say on the future direction of the alternative BCS and USUALLY a 3rd berth in the BCS bowls due to their quality and depth.

SEC
East
1) Florida
2) Florida State
3) South Carolina
4) Clemson
5) Georgia
6) Georgia Tech

West
7) Alabama
8) Auburn
9) Kentucky
10) Tennessee
11) Ole' Miss
12) Miss. State

The SEC is a conference of rivalries and the new additions only add to it. The SEC champ would play the Top 10 champ in the Sugar Bowl.

====================================================

The gutted ACC would be encouraged to add the top academic Big East schools and WV to become alternative BCS caliber again.

ACC North
1) Syracuse
2) UCONN
3) BC
4) Pitt
5) Rutgers
6) Army
7) West Virginia
8) Navy

ACC South
9) Maryland
10) Virginia
11) Virginia Tech
12) UNC
13) NC State
14) Wake Forest
15) Duke
16) Miami

They would be slotted in the Peach Bowl vs. The SEC's #2 team.

=======================================================

The remnants of the Big East, CUSA, and Sunbelt would be offered a slot if they formed an acceptable 16 team conference and brought top academic schools Ohio, Miami Oxford, and Buffalo out of the Big 10 shadow (the MAC) ----in hopes that 1 or more of theose universities might graduate to ACC level in case Duke is forced to FCS by the NCAA at some point in the future.

CUSA 3.0
North
1) Louisville
2) Ohio U.
3) Miami Oxford
4) Buffalo
5) Temple
6) Marshall
7) ECU
8) La. Tech

South
9) UL
10) UL- Monroe
11) S. Miss
12) Troy
13) USF
14) UCF
15) FIU
16) FAU

The Florida heavy CUSA 3.0 would have a slot in the Orange Bowl vs. (usually) The SEC's #3 team, but also from time to time the MAC champ.
=====================================================

Cinnci would drift back down to the MAC, with temple providing CUSA v.3 better basketball and a much stronger TV market.

=====================================================

The WAC would welcome back Wyoming, UNLV, and SD State. The TV markets they provide would allow the conference long term viability.

Idaho
Boise State
Wyoming
NM State
Fresno State
San Diego State
San Jose State
UNR
UNLV
Hawaii
Utah State

The WAC would be encouraged to expand with IAA schools. New BCS endorsed member FCS candidate schools like N. Arizona, Sacramento State, UC Davis, Portland State, and Montana would help the WAC to regular new BCS status --- if those Universities build 30K+ stadiums on campus.

The MAC and WAC would be allowed to "play in" to the alternative BCS system barring an expansion to 14 teams, at which point their 9M bid would become automatic, or 16 at which point their share would be 17M share. Each school having at least a 30K stadium would be a requirement for admission to the new BCS as a full member.

A top 12 finish would give them access to a slot in one of the bowl games. Unlike the current system, an undefeated season and a top 5 finish would allow the MAC or WAC a shot to play in the national title game if fewer than two of the teams ahead of them have a single loss. This would enhance the SEC or Top 10's chances of winning it all AND would offer teams in the MAC and WAC a glimpse of a better future.

The Fiesta Bowl would slot the #2 "Top 10 Conference" team against the WAC Winner or possibly the Pac 10 #2 (if they want to compete) or a western Magnolia Champion or the next highest ranked team.

The Big 10, PAC 10, & Notre Dame would have a standing offer of opting in if they were ranked in the top 2 and wanted to compete for a national title and their Rose Bowl/ whatever Notre Dame Bowl matchup was insufficient for that.

All bowl games would have a little flexibility to ensure the best turnout possible.

======================

Finances

the current BCS system splits ~135M between members as such:

ACC =17
Big East = 17
Big Ten = 17
Big XII = 17
Pac 10 = 17
SEC = 17
other conferences enmasse = 9M
at large bids = 18 to as much as 36M, but usually 22.5M
FCS = 1.8M


Per team share in existing BCS
Atlantic Coast (12 teams): $1.417M / $1.792M
Big East (8 teams): $2.125M / $2.688M
Big Ten (11 teams): $1.545M / $1.955M
Big 12 (12 teams): $1.417M / $1.792M
Pacific 10 (10 teams): $1.7M / $2.15M
Southeastern (12 teams): $1.417M / $1.792M


==================================

It seems like that the Big 10/Pac 10 alliance is probably worth about 43M, leaving about 92M available. The proposed setup would add another BCS bowl which would add additional revenue to the pool, but lets guess that the pool would be around 110M.

==================================

So that would be
New BCS
Sugar (T10 #1 vs. SEC #1)
Cotton (Mag #1 vs. SWC #1)
Orange (CUSA 3.0 #1 vs. SEC #3/MAC #1/ND/Big 10 #2/PAC 10 #2)
Peach (ACC #1 vs. SEC #2)
Fiesta (T10 #2 vs. WAC #1/Variable/ND/Pac10 #2)

conference total average share per member
T10 - 17M+4.5M=21.5M = $2.15M per member
SEC - 17M+4.5M+4.5M = 26M = $2.17M per member
Magnolia - 17M = 1.9M per member
SWC -17M = 1.2M per member
CUSA 3.0 -17M = 1.06M per member
ACC -17M = 1.06M per member
WAC -9M (on occasion)= 818K per member
MAC -9M (on occasion)= 900K per member
ND 4.5M (on occasion)
FCS = 3.6M

Assuming a WAC appearance at 9M and a ND no-show, that totals right at 110M.

+ the last surviving Old BCS game
Rose (PAC 10 #1 vs. Big 10 #1)

I think it would be likely that the PAC 10 and Big 10 just left the rose bowl in place and took 22M each from it rather than push for a second BCS caliber bowl.

=====================

Why The conference and BCS stuff might be plausible.

For the most part, it is a huge win/win and is initiated by the biggest unsatisfied power broker in the system.

1) The power football schools outside of the Big 10 and Pac 10 get raises, are paid appropriate amounts based on football excellence, and get control over the BCS from the yankees. That satisfies their main gripes.

2) Just about every non-BCS school gets a financial bump from the new system and a better chance to play in a BCS bowl. That puts them on board with the changes.

3) The system opens the door for appropriate schools to make the jump to the MAC and WAC, while leaving those conferences in a financially healthy state with some "membership cushion". The MAC footprint shrinks a little---not a bad situation for a small buget conference. The WAC goes from precarious to content.

4) Dissatsified Customers like the football challenged members of the ACC, Iowa State, Kansas State, Miami, VT, Virginia, and the Big East Schools all lose out vs. the current system. What has to be remembered is that all of those schools have a lot more to lose if UT started their own conference and left the BCS to the Big 10. In that scenario, the SEC would probably still raid the ACC and the the ACC would still raid the Big East leaving Iowa State, Kansas State, OSU, Texas Tech, and the BE remnants to fall out of the BCS mix entirely.

5) Schools like Texas Tech may drop from a high 2nd tier conference to a third tier conference, but they drop to an exceptionally healthy third tier conference where they can dominate and have a much better chance of earn BCS invites.

6) Post season college Football is nearly exclusively a southern thing. How can I say that with the Big 10 having some of the best attendance numbers in the nation? The answer is simply "Where are the Bowls?" It is too cold to have a bowl in Big 10 territory. The BCS Bowls (+ the revamping Cotton Bowl) and the people who run them are in the SEC, Big XII, and PAC 10 Territory. If you take care of the SEC and give the Bowls sellable matchups, they would probably change sides.

7) The NCAA would be in favor of this as it would take them out of the line of fire by dramatically reducing lawsuits over the current BCS.

8) The revamping of the Cotton Bowl gives the Top 10 conference the perfect fallback in case they can't bring in the other conferences. A revamped Cotton Bowl would be BCS caliber. With the Top 10 Conference champion vs. a wild card like the Magnolia or SWC conference, The Top 10 conference members would still be able to pull 17M out.

9) Having rebuilt Texas football and having turned Texas basketball into a national power, Deloss Dodds needs a new challenge.


Last edited by finiteman on Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:43 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 10:22 am
Posts: 1030

Quote:
(In the interest of full disclosure) I live in Texas and I love Texas.

I think about what would be in the interest of the state of Texas and I think I invariably come up with 1 alignment that best satisfies the state's economic and leadership interests in FBS football.

It requires a revolt from the BCS and a breaking of Jim Delany and the Big 10's hold on the FBS wallet.

What would be required to make it happen.

1) UT, OU, and Arkansas making it known that they will not be a part of any future Big 10 negotiated BCS package, opting out for their own "BCS" Bowls.

2) UT and OU pulling the plug on the Big 12 and forming a new elite conference of state flagships that rival or exceed the PAC 10 in quality.

3) This new conference getting the SEC on board as an equal member in setting the direction of IA for the future.

When the BCS deal nears conclusion, UT needs to start landing committments. The other Big 12 schools don't really have better options if UT, OU, and A&M bolt, so they would be grudgingly on board. All of the lower level conferences would sign on for a better lot. The Gang of 5 would splinter with promises of inclusion of 4 members. The SEC is the trickiest bit due to their committment to history, but I think they could be talked into a "wait and see" stance--- withholding support for the Big 10/Pac 10 alliance blessed BCS until they see what Deloss Dodds and company could deliver. (They aren't in love with being a tool of Yankees either.)

==============
the nuts and bolts
==============


The formation of 3 Texas-based conferences, Allowing ALL FBS Texas schools to fully leverage the TV power of the state.

===================================================

In order to challenge the Big 10 for leadership, UT cannot be a member of an obviously inferior conference. Having Iowa State in the Big XII noticably slots the Big XII as lower in the pecking order than the Big 10. (No knock on Iowa State. This is only perception and money. If it was only about academics, they certainly belong.)

The Big XII has got to go to give UT the bully pulpit to reorganize FBS to their satisfaction.


1) The Top 10 conference

The name doesn't really matter. I chose the Top 10 Conference because it is immediately antagonistic to the PAC 10 and Big 10. It would be a tip of the hat to the Big 8.

1. UT
2. A&M
3. OU
4. Colorado
5. Nebraska
6. Kansas
7. Missouri
8. Arkansas
9. Utah
10. LSU

Financially this conference of state flagships would have a much larger market than the SEC and fewer mouths to feed, so it would be more financially attractive than the SEC. Arkansas would bolt in a second as they clearly miss being in the same conference as their cheif rival UT. With the financial difference between shares as a member of the SEC and UT's new conference tipping towards UT's side, the only hurdle for rejoining UT would be gone. LSU is a lot more debatable. History is very important to LSU, but financial and academic pressure might have them accepting membership. It isn't a deal breaker if LSU stays in the SEC. Utah would join as public and academic powerbrokers in their state would insist on them joining this "new Big 10". BYU would not be allowed to join to protect the conference from being forced into breaking it's criteria (top public academic and athletic flagships only). UT for it's part would promise BYU would be admitted into the "alternative BCS" as a part of an equally exclusive conference.


Finiteman,

I find this very interesting and appreciate how much effort is has taken to put this together. My first question is - how much money do you think this TV contract will be for FB and BB (sans LSU I just don't think they would ever leave)?

Remember the Big12 was estimated to have just signed a $60 million per year TV contract - this was for 12 teams, all the conference games for 12 teams, and a championship game ($5 million per university). This was 1.4X the amount of the previous contract. I think your 'Top-9' Conference would be able to reach $6 per school. Remember, the Big 10 has just signed a new TV deal that is worth $6.5 million which includes more FB and BB games and more TV sets (an increase of 1.25X the previous contract).

So, how much do you think they will get per school for BB and FB?

Of course your scenerio doesn't take into account all the money the 7 schools (UT, A&M, UColo, KU, OU, NU) would be losing in exit fees but lets assume that it won't matter.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:10 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:53 pm
Posts: 368
That Magnolia Conference is pretty good. However this:

The Southwest conference
Western Division
1) Colorado State
2) Kansas State
3) Iowa State
4) Oklahoma State
5) UNM
6) UAB
7) S. Alabama

Southern Division
8) UTEP
9) UTSA
10) Texas State
11) Houston
12) UNT
13) Texas Tech
14) Memphis

non-football
15) UT-Arlington (non-football)
16) New Orleans (non-football)
..Noway...S. Alabama? UTA?

Memphis wants to join Cincy and Louisville in a conference. UAB wants in too. So lets take those schools out plus UNO. And replace them with better regional fits

The Southwest conference
Western Division
1) Colorado State
2) Kansas State
3) Iowa State
4) Oklahoma State
5) UNM
6) UTEP
7) Texas Tech

Southern Division
8) La Tech
9) UTSA
10) Texas State
11) Houston
12) UNT
13) Lamar
14) ULL


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:14 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 556
Location: Dallas

Quote:
..Noway...S. Alabama? UTA?

Memphis wants to join Cincy and Louisville in a conference. UAB wants in too. So lets take those schools out plus UNO. And replace them with better regional fits

The Southwest conference
Western Division
1) Colorado State
2) Kansas State
3) Iowa State
4) Oklahoma State
5) UNM
6) UTEP
7) Texas Tech

Southern Division
8) La Tech
9) UTSA
10) Texas State
11) Houston
12) UNT
13) Lamar
14) ULL


Appreciate the input, but I wrote this from a State of Texas perspective. There are strong reasons to include UTA as UTA is already IAAA. UNT is the #1 producer of graduates in the metroplex, but they are not centrally located in the metroplex. UTA is. Their inclusion makes sense in terms of state revenue and in terms of TV. Saying the SWC produces say (30+26/4=)~14K graduates for DFW each year does make them a lot more interesting than just UNT producing 7K or so on the north end of the metroplex. UNT gives the new SWC an FBS foothold in DFW, UTA would potentially "legitimize" it with their grads by playing FCS or IAAA.

From a financial perspective, if you aren't in a BCS conference, the MWC, or CUSA or what I am calling a "new BCS" conference or aren't in a basketball power conference as an IAAA non-football conference, you don't really have a very good shot to make money and odds are you will lose money hand over fist. That may or may not be OK for the university higher ups and thier bosses. Athletics are university loss leaders as far as advertising goes...

S. Alabama has a nice media market with no pro teams. It delivers TVs at the right rate for inclusion and is natual balance for UAB. It fits the prototype.


Regarding Mephis WANTING to be in the same conference as Cinnci and Louisville, I haven't seen evidence of that. I have seen evidence that they want to be in a BCS conference, but I don't see anything that indicates they are dying to get back in bed with either school. As far as just replacing them and New Orleans with LA schools, I don't see any real logic to that. Memphis and New Orleans deliver sizeable native markets that will generate TV revenue and make the conference viable. The other LA schools would simply sponge off the Texas markets.

There is a thought that the Texas markets on their own are insufficient to power a conference. I don't buy that, but I kept it in mind as historically, Texas schools always roped in outside schools. It may be some kind of concept historically held by media brokers or maybe having something to do with the method of delivery of TV signal in the past (broadcast).

My concept with this post was to outline how to get every Texas University up to it's ideal level of competition and financial health. Bringing in schools like Memphis to play Houston and Tech and New Orleans in basketball makes sense in that regard. They are demographic peers. Bringing in the other LA schools would act as financial anchors. I am only looking to be MODESTLY charitable --- and only for Texas schools.

The schools that I chose for inclusion in the "new SWC" model have the enrollment and native media markets make sense as an FBS participant or IAAA member of a top basketball conference TODAY.

ULL, La Tech, ULM, and Lamar look like FCS schools if you look at their demographics, enrollments, and academics. In that regard they would be deemed "unworthy" of membership in this conference for TV revenue purposes. Their inclusion would not make sense for the state of Texas as Lamar cannot maintain FBS attendance levels and ULL and La Tech supply small and relatively low income TV markets --- they don't add as much as they would potentially take.

IMO, Lamar should be an FCS school in the same conference as Sam Houston and SFA again. Build a 25K stadium and go be a FCS power, but recognize that the TV market just isn't there for a profitable IAAA ride or FBS.

Louisiana needs to get their football act together as well, IMO. There is a well known LSU bias in the state that is fine and perhaps even healthy to a point (IMO that point does not include stopping ULL form being simply UL), but you can't have a half dozen other Louisiana schools playing FBS or entertaining it. Really, Tulane and LSU have the only "legit" reasons for playing FBS. (Tulane due to media market, private funding, and academic excellence). Putting history aside, the other schools would do better as FCS powers ala Montana. Louisiana has always been a great basketball state and that helps too.

Media market lines are unkind to Louisiana. If they really wanted to make their state universities healthier, they might consider a merger of La. Tech/La. Monroe. Make them east /west campuses of La Tech (the older and higher ranked university). Plunk a 45K stadium halfway between the two. Both schools have a few highly ranked academic programs. That would give them enough student body to get real consideration as "northern Luisiana's university" and might get them approaching second tier academically with LT's Shreveport campus, that might be enough to convince conferences that La Tech has a legit hold on shreveport, but now LT is a tough sell with their small enrollment, despite their history. Both schools look to be splitting the tiny monroe market.

ULL can only hope to expand enrollment for financial health.

Really all 3 schools would be healthier as FCS powers.







Last edited by finiteman on Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:32 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 556
Location: Dallas

Quote:

Finiteman,

I find this very interesting and appreciate how much effort is has taken to put this together. My first question is - how much money do you think this TV contract will be for FB and BB (sans LSU I just don't think they would ever leave)?

Remember the Big12 was estimated to have just signed a $60 million per year TV contract - this was for 12 teams, all the conference games for 12 teams, and a championship game ($5 million per university). This was 1.4X the amount of the previous contract. I think your 'Top-9' Conference would be able to reach $6 per school. Remember, the Big 10 has just signed a new TV deal that is worth $6.5 million which includes more FB and BB games and more TV sets (an increase of 1.25X the previous contract).

So, how much do you think they will get per school for BB and FB?

Of course your scenerio doesn't take into account all the money the 7 schools (UT, A&M, UColo, KU, OU, NU) would be losing in exit fees but lets assume that it won't matter.


I am not a media buyer so my best guesses in that regard are strictly semi-educated guesses.

Additionally, I am getting over PRK, so my vision is about 20/70 at best so the detailed layout of this will likely have to wait a few days until I can see again, but I promise you I will do my best to give you the information as I have located it.

Concerning exit fees, they might not exist or be greatly reduced in this scenario. UT's schools leaving would effectively kill the Big XII. Can remaining schools demand damages if the conferenc is defunct? Remember this proposal lays out an inclusionary path for all Big XII member schools as well as all the better MWC schools who potentially could replace them. Will the outed Big XII schools risk not being included in the new SWC to get their full payments? Would they win in court? Don't know about that. If this went down they would have few options besides independent status if they annoyed the wrong powerbrokers. My guess is that the fees would be reasonable/negotiable in exchange for a viable long term home.





Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:55 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 6:47 pm
Posts: 218
Location: Milwaukee, WI
First of all, West Virginia is in the ACC and the C-USA in this scenario (obviously can't happen). I'd put Cincinnati in the C-USA, simply because they are a growing program and give a natural rival to Louisville and Miami of Ohio. I don't know how Tier 1, 2, and 3 academic schools are determined: FiniteMan if you have a source for that I'd like to know.

Second of all, how about Western Kentucky, Mid Tennessee, and Arkansas State? Western Kentucky just spent a lot of money to upgrade their stadium and other parts of their program to be ready for FBS, so I'm sure they wouldn't want to go back to FCS anytime soon. I'd put all 3 of these schools in the MAC, they are contiguous with the Western Division of this conference.

Here's a summary of FiniteMan's proposal (with my alterations):
ACC: 16 teams
Big 10: 11
C-USA: 16
Magnolia: 9
MAC: 13
Pac-10: 10
SEC: 12
SWC: 14
Top 10: 10
WAC: 11
Independent: 1

Total: 123 teams
FCS Upgrades: 2 (UTSA and Texas State)
Teams in the state of Texas: 12

Certainly the way to go if you are from the state of Texas. This proposal overall isn't even that bad to the Pac-10 and Big Ten, since it would essentially return to the way things were before 1998. As a student at Michigan and lifelong resident of Michigan, I do know that we won our last national title under the old system.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:50 am 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 556
Location: Dallas
Careless oversights on my part. Thank you for pointing them out. My intention was that the remaining Sunbelt schools might join the MAC if they were close enough and large enough, but I did not say it. You are right to point out that these schools are in fact quite close to the MAC footprint and would likely replace Ohio, Miami Oxford and Buffalo. The WV placement was something I struggled with, hence the error and now the fixed correction.

The MAC (post "Texas-quake")

MAC North
Western Michigan Broncos
Central Michigan Chippewas
Eastern Michigan Eagles
Akron Zips
Bowling Green Falcons
Kent State Golden Flashes

MAC South
Cinnci
M. Tennessee State
W. Kentucky
Ball State Cardinals
Northern Illinois Huskies
Toledo Rockets

IAA powers
ULL
ULM
Arkansas State


Last edited by finiteman on Fri Dec 21, 2007 7:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 4:36 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 703
Location: Louisville, KY
Both the Magnolia Conference and Southwest Conference flunk the 6/5 rule (the Top 10 Conference would preserve the former Big 12's automatic bid). Keeping that in mind, let me make a few changes:

Top 10 (7 from former Big 12; 2 from SEC; 1 from Mountain West)
Texas, Texas A&M, Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, LSU, Arkansas, Utah, Colorado

Mountain West (8 continuing members; 4 from Big 12)
Mountain - San Diego State, UNLV, Wyoming, BYU, Colorado State, Air Force
Western - Texas Christian, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Baylor, Texas Tech, New Mexico

Southeastern (10 continuing members; 1 from ACC; 1 from Big East)
Southern - Mississippi, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Florida
Eastern - South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Louisville

Permanent Rivalries:
South Carolina - Florida, Georgia
Tennessee - Alabama, Mississippi
Vanderbilt - Alabama, Auburn
Kentucky - Florida, Mississippi State
Louisville - Auburn, Mississippi
North Carolina - Georgia, Mississippi State

Atlantic Coast (11 continuing members; 1 from Big East)
Atlantic - Boston College, Clemson, Miami (FL), Maryland, North Carolina State, Wake Forest
Coastal - Connecticut, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Duke

Note that the Seminoles and Hurricanes have swapped divisions.

Big East (6 continuing members for football, 2 from Conference USA)
Syracuse, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Cincinnati, Rutgers, South Florida, Central Florida, East Carolina

Conference USA (10 continuing members, 1 from WAC, 1 from Division I FCS):
West - UTEP, Tulsa, Southern Methodist, Houston, Rice, UTSA
East - Louisiana Tech, Tulane, Southern Mississippi, UAB, Memphis, Marshall

Sun Belt (9 continuing members for football, 3 from Division I FCS):
West - North Texas, Arkansas State, Louisiana-Monroe, Louisiana-Lafayette, WKU, MTSU
East - Florida International, Florida Atlantic, South Alabama, Troy, Georgia Southern, Georgia State

Big Ten (11 continuing members, 1 from former Big 12)
West - Iowa, Iowa State, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern
East - Indiana, Purdue, Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Michigan State


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 9:40 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 4:25 pm
Posts: 15
Wow. That was alot of work you put in. But surely you understand that this scenario you have labored over will never come to pass. The alignments you have for the conferences other than the first one make little sense to me. First why Utah in the first 10? Why in the world would Denver and St. Louis be in the Magnolia Conference? They don't even play D-1 football. Also, in your Southwest Conference, you do realize that South Alabama hasn't even started a football program yet right? UTSA? UAB? That's just silly, silly stuff.

I admire your hard work, but I can't even begin to see the logic of this much less any remote possibility of something like this being considered.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 3:11 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 6:47 pm
Posts: 218
Location: Milwaukee, WI
After thinking about this for awhile, how about a slightly different lineup for the Top 10 Conference:

1. Iowa
2. Illinois
3. LSU
4. Arkansas
5. Nebraska
6. Missouri
7. Kansas
8. Oklahoma
9. Texas
10. Texas A&M

The remainder of the Big 12 and best of the Mountain West can make their own conference:

1. Texas Tech
2. Baylor
3. Oklahoma State
4. Kansas State
5. Colorado
6. TCU
7. Utah
8. BYU
9. New Mexico
10. Colorado State
11. UNLV

This one is also far-fetched, but I think would have some interesting repercussions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:11 pm 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
Sadly, media markets come into play with too much importance.

Think of a conference with:
Texas
Texas A&M
Oklahoma
Oklahoma St.
Nebraska
Colorado
Colorado St.
Utah
BYU
New Mexico

A ten team conference of solid programs. This league would own the region with the largest programs in Texas, Colorado, Oklahoma, nebraska, Utah and new mexico. Regionally, travel would remain manageable and with 10 teams, the $$$ would be split by 2 less schools. but markets are a problem with only Dallas/Houston/austin/San antonio (all of Texas), Oklahoma city, Denver and SLC making the cut.

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2008 5:36 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 556
Location: Dallas

PantherSC97 wrote:
...My first question is - how much money do you think this TV contract will be for FB and BB (sans LSU --- I just don't think they would ever leave.)?

Remember the Big12 was estimated to have just signed a $60 million per year TV contract - this was for 12 teams, all the conference games for 12 teams, and a championship game ($5 million per university). This was 1.4X the amount of the previous contract. I think your 'Top-9' Conference would be able to reach $6 per school. Remember, the Big 10 has just signed a new TV deal that is worth $6.5 million which includes more FB and BB games and more TV sets (an increase of 1.25X the previous contract).

So, how much do you think they will get per school for BB and FB?...


My eyes are OK now, so lets run some numbers.

By Population
--------------------------------

First I am going to do some VERY rough numbers using state populations rather than media areas. This is very much not how the media brokers would do it, it is a very "dirty" look.

The big 12:
Kansas (Kansas, Kansas State) = 2.8M
Missouri (Missouri) = 5.8M
Colorado (Colorado) = 4.8M
Nebraska (Nebraska) = 1.8M
Iowa (Iowa State) = 3.0M
Oklahoma (Oklahoma, Oklahoma State) = 3.6M
Texas (Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Baylor) = 23.5M

grand total = 45.3 M / 12 mouths = 3.775 M per school



The Top "9" conference (sans LSU)

Kansas (Kansas) = 2.8M
Missouri (Missouri) = 5.8M
Colorado (Colorado) = 4.8M
Nebraska (Nebraska) = 1.8M
Oklahoma (Oklahoma) = 3.6M
Texas (Texas, Texas A&M) = 23.5M
Arkansas (Arkansas) = 2.8M
Utah (Utah) = 2.6M

Grand total of 47.7M / 9 mouths to feed = 5.3 M per school or about 40% more per school than the Big 12.

-------------------------------------------------

By TV Markets

This is more in line with how a network might view it, but there are a number of factors that I am glazing over ---- including the income of each market (that particular factor is not that pressing in this analysis as all markets are somewhat healthy). Addtionally, in the era of nationwide TV, this methodology is losing a lot of the bottom line finality that it had in the broadcast era, but is is probably still pretty good for figuring out the size of a conference's market.

There are a lot of overlapping markets that extend from one state to another. which make computing the ACTUAL market share of a conference to be a lot of bean counting. This is why a school like Arkansas would have a ton more value to a Big 9 conference than to a SEC where the SEC already has relevance in the memphis, shereveport, and memphis markets. Ditto Nebraska in a conference like the Big 10 over the Big 12.

Addtionally, even if a school has statewide or regional appeal, how strong is their following? I think in general instances you can look at their attendance numbers and get a good idea of that, but for this quick and easy, I haven't addressed it.

Finally, I have tagged some schools as having statewide followings, some regional, and some having local followings. You can disagree, but I personally agree with the logic that some schools have local followings (like UNT and Lamar), some have regional followings (small ones like UTEP, So Miss, or LA Tech, or large ones like Texas Tech and BYU) while other schools have statewide followings like OU, UT, and A&M and most other flagships.

The big 12 (ignoring overlaps):
Kansas (Kansas -sw, Kansas State -sw) = 1.7M
Missouri (Missouri -sw) = 3.5M
Colorado (Colorado -sw) = 1.9M
Nebraska (Nebraska -r) = 2.6M
Iowa (Iowa State -sw) = 1.5M
Oklahoma (Oklahoma -sw, Oklahoma State -sw) = 1.8M
Texas (Texas -sw, Texas Tech -r, Texas A&M -sw, Baylor -l) = 8.8M

My count of Big 12 without overlapping is 19.1M TV households. It is slightly generous as i give the Big 12 Albequeue (.68M) even though it barely (populationwise) overlaps into CO.

19.1M TV households / 12 schools = 1.591M TV Households generating the TV share for each B12 university.

The Top "9" conference (sans LSU)

Kansas (Kansas) = 1.7M
Missouri (Missouri) = 3.5M
Colorado (Colorado) = 1.9M
Nebraska (Nebraska) = 2.6M
Oklahoma (Oklahoma) = 1.8M
Texas (Texas, Texas A&M) = 8.8M
Arkansas (Arkansas) = 2.5M
Utah (Utah) = .9M

My count of Top 9 without overlapping is 20.5M TV households. (I also assign the top 9 Albequeue (.68M) relevance even though it barely (populationwise) overlaps into CO. )

20.5M TV Households / 9 unversities would generate a TV share for each of 2.278M ... 43% larger than the B12 current total.

I don't know what the 60M is for, but using that as a barometer I would speculate that 64.4M deal would be very possible, but for ease of math we will say 63M. Divide that by 9 and you end up with 7M per school or 2M more (40% more) than the members schools make today.

UT, OU, and A&M are leaving money on the table.

This is why i think the Big 12 is not as stable as others think. There is an obvious financial incentive to remake this conference and few real hurdles to prevent it. When UT and OU decide to make the move, I think it will happen.


Last edited by finiteman on Sun May 04, 2008 6:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2008 6:10 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 556
Location: Dallas
Addtionally, BCS shares would be larger even if the conference just became the Top 9 (and the OSUs and Texas Techs drifted into the MWC).

Big 12 (12 teams): $1.417M / $1.792M
Top 9 (9 teams): $1.889M / $2.389M

That is just a lot of money to ignore on top of the academic status bump it would give all member schools...



Last edited by finiteman on Sun May 04, 2008 6:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group