Conference Realignment

[Beeski]

I still don't get how which athletic conference a school is in has any effect on how many research dollars it gets. Lots of conflating the CIC with the B1G. The CIC has influence. The AAU has influence. Most B1G schools are AAU and CIC. So? Where's the connection to the B1G? Bringing an AAU and CIC school into the conference increases the research dollars of the other schools in the conference? How? This article doesn't make that clear to me. Maybe I'm missing something. Does the University of Chicago get less research money because it isn't in the B1G? ???

Lobbying power, by joining together they create a block and use their combined influence along with their congressional delegations to get a bigger slice of the Federal research dollar pie.
U of Chicago is part of the B1G from a lobbying perspective (though it overlaps Northwestern and Illinois when it comes to congressional delegations).
GT, UNC and UVA would be prime additions to the B1G according to this article. AAU members and fresh Congressional delegations is a net positive.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Agreed. But if you think everyone is just going to wait 15 years you are crazy. The money is too enormous to wait. Both in season games and an expanded playoffs are worth billions and the power brokers know it. I don’t know the how’s or when’s but I also have watched enough history to know how it plays out. It’s no different than when guys like me were told over and over again that the bowl system would never allow a playoff. Today people laugh at the stupidity of bowls and their attendance is garbage as are the ratings (with a few exceptions of the big names who get left). Now, the playoff games are the exact opposite and can’t sell enough tickets. Just remember guys like me when in some random day in a random April or May when the next shoe drops.

You keep repeating opinion, yet ignore facts. Tell me, when, in your history, have you ever seen a successful renunciation of a grant of rights? You haven't? Didn't think so. If money was that important, Texas and Oklahoma would already be in the $EC. Know why they are waiting? Grant of rights. Know why UCLA and USC will wait? Grant of rights. You can keep telling yourself that money will be the reason why teams bolt the ACC, but I'm here to tell you that money is the reason they will stay. Specifically, the money they'd lose because of their grant of rights.

As far as the playoff thing goes, you are far from a lone prophet in the wilderness on that front. We knew from the minute they went to the BCS that an eventual playoff was going to happen. It was all a matter of when. You're so busy trying to be the smartest guy in the room you're failing to see the reality around you. I might be "crazy" but I'm going to base my projections on logical outcomes and legal precedent.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

You keep repeating opinion, yet ignore facts. Tell me, when, in your history, have you ever seen a successful renunciation of a grant of rights? You haven't? Didn't think so. If money was that important, Texas and Oklahoma would already be in the $EC. Know why they are waiting? Grant of rights. Know why UCLA and USC will wait? Grant of rights. You can keep telling yourself that money will be the reason why teams bolt the ACC, but I'm here to tell you that money is the reason they will stay. Specifically, the money they'd lose because of their grant of rights.

As far as the playoff thing goes, you are far from a lone prophet in the wilderness on that front. We knew from the minute they went to the BCS that an eventual playoff was going to happen. It was all a matter of when. You're so busy trying to be the smartest guy in the room you're failing to see the reality around you. I might be "crazy" but I'm going to base my projections on logical outcomes and legal precedent.

Whatever then. All we have are opinions because none of us are in the room. You, me, and every other poster. You act shocked that a message board is full of opinions. And in no way am I acting like the smartest guy here. But I’m not in denial like you who believes nothing will change until 2036. Heck, by 2036 the big 2 could already be broken up as it all depends on what TV or streaming services want. They are the ones paying the bills and setting the rules.

When teams leave the ACC before 2036 I’ll be here to remind you that your almighty GOR didn’t stop anything. And please remember your quote ”I’m here to tell you that money is the reason they will stay.”. I’ll be interested to hear how you explain that statement away. I’m sure there will be ”something” that none of us could have seen….

 

[RamblinRed]

SEC hopes to stay at 16 teams​

The realignment carousel could be coming to an end soon as sources tell Saturday Down South's Matt Hayes that the "preference" from SEC presidents is for the conference stay at 16 teams instead of entertaining expansion moves. Hayes reports that presidents would lean towards staying at 16 teams even if Notre Dame were to join the Big Ten. "The need just isn't there," an SEC athletic director told Hayes. If the SEC plans to stand pat, it could close the door on programs like Oregon, Clemson and Florida State getting into the high-money conferences -- and could be a lifeline for conferences like the Pac-12 and ACC to prevent major attrition.


All this talk about teams leaving for other conferences leaves out one important point, the school that leaves has to have somewhere to go. It's pretty clear right now that neither the SEC Presidents nor the B10 Presidents see any schools worthy of joining their conferences right now. That may change down the road, but I think for now things are quiet except for possible moves between the PAC and B12.

I think alot of fans are overvaluing how much their schools program is worth.

The next CFP is really where things will hit. If there is an expanded playoff with all the P5 conferences getting automatic bids then there really is no need for the Big 2 to expand at all and frankly it would run against their interests to expand. If the Big 2 decided to break off and do their own thing then there would be a great desire by quite a few teams in the P3 to move up, but realistically only a handful of them would ultimately be taken as the more teams you have in your conference the more money you have to make to feed all those mouths.

Here is how I look at ACC Schools.
I think 6 schools basically have no shot at moving. Of the others.
Clemson - I think SEC would take Clemson due to their brand. Even with SC, TN and UGA right there.
UNC - I actually think UNC is the most overall attractive team in the league and the only one that both the SEC and B10 would have serious interest in. UNC Would never consider joining the SEC, they would think about the B10 as they did a decade ago but i'm on record saying I think UNC will stay in the ACC that it built no matter what. If it wanted to leave I think it would actually be the easiest one to get an offer.
FSU - SEC would have some interest in them. I'd put the odds of them getting an offer from the SEC at between 40-50%. It would climb over 50% if they could win 10 games consistently. If they continue to be mediocre their odds drop.
Miami - sort of the same boat as FSU and imo they are direct competitors. I think it is highly unlikely the SEC would take both, I don't see there being enough value in both of them to justify it.
UVA - The B10 would have some interest here, but I think they would be somewhat down the list and like UNC I simply don't see them ever leaving the ACC.
VT - SEC would probably have some interest as it would be a school in a new state, but especially right now they likely don't being enough value. Maybe a 25-30% chance they could get an offer.
GT - The B10 would have some interest due to the market and its academic research reputation. Maybe a 20-25% chance it could get an offer from the B10. No chance at an SEC offer, GT brings nothing to them.
NCSU - SEC might have some interest, especially if UNC went to the B10, but i'd put the odds of an SEC offer at 20-25%.

There is also alot of overlapping political interests at stake here. If UNC doesn't leave the ACC , NCSU isn't going to leave either. Neither would UVA. After what UVA was put through to bring VT in I can't see VT leaving unless UVA also left. I don't think Miami and FSU bring enough value to justify one conference bringing in both.

Keep in mind that the SEC, with the exception of the TX offer - which is a huge state both geographically and population wise, has always offered a school in a state they don't already have a presence. They may not looking to be as national as the B10 or as concerned with big markets, but they have avoided overlap when they have expanded.

You also have to keep in mind that ultimately any offers have to be approved by the Presidents of the Universities and they have their own set of desires and wants beyond just the football program.

I don't expect the ACC to be the same in 2036 as it is today. I also don't expect it to fall apart or lose most of its members.

 

[RonJohn]

I still don't get how which athletic conference a school is in has any effect on how many research dollars it gets. Lots of conflating the CIC with the B1G. The CIC has influence. The AAU has influence. Most B1G schools are AAU and CIC. So? Where's the connection to the B1G? Bringing an AAU and CIC school into the conference increases the research dollars of the other schools in the conference? How? This article doesn't make that clear to me. Maybe I'm missing something. Does the University of Chicago get less research money because it isn't in the B1G? ???

I posted earlier that the academic side of GT would probably be happy to be part of the Big 10 Academic Alliance. The Big 10 actually takes academics and research seriously as a group. That isn't too say that they put every athlete thru intense academic rigor, but to say that they don't just join as football teams, they join research materials and academics together. That is the reason that some people don't see them going after less research oriented schools no matter how strong the football team is. BTW, the University of Chicago is a member of the academic alliance.

 

[bobongo]

Lobbying power, by joining together they create a block and use their combined influence along with their congressional delegations to get a bigger slice of the Federal research dollar pie.
U of Chicago is part of the B1G from a lobbying perspective (though it overlaps Northwestern and Illinois when it comes to congressional delegations).
GT, UNC and UVA would be prime additions to the B1G according to this article. AAU members and fresh Congressional delegations is a net positive.

The B1G has lobbyists in Washington regarding academic research dollars? I understand the AAU and the CIC, but the B1G? What does the B1G have to do with it?

 

[bobongo]

I posted earlier that the academic side of GT would probably be happy to be part of the Big 10 Academic Alliance. The Big 10 actually takes academics and research seriously as a group. That isn't too say that they put every athlete thru intense academic rigor, but to say that they don't just join as football teams, they join research materials and academics together. That is the reason that some people don't see them going after less research oriented schools no matter how strong the football team is. BTW, the University of Chicago is a member of the academic alliance.

The B1G actually brings research teams together? They wouldn't be doing that if their football teams were in different conferences? If you say so, but...
I know the U. of C. is part of the academic alliance. My point is they can be a part of the academic alliance without being in the B1G. What does the B1G have to do with it?

 

[RonJohn]

The B1G actually brings research teams together? They wouldn't be doing that if their football teams were in different conferences? If you say so, but...
I know the U. of C. is part of the academic alliance. My point is they can be a part of the academic alliance without being in the B1G. What does the B1G have to do with it?

Chicago used to be in the Big 10. The alliance, under a different name, was formed in the 50s. At it's inception, they invited Chicago to join. Chicago was a founding member of the Big 10, but pulled out and have only completed in division 3 since. (Under different names because division 3 wasn't actually named until the 70s)

Chicago is the only school not in the Big 10 athletic conference to be in the alliance, and they were a founding member who basically dropped sports. Maryland and Rutgers were invited after they agreed to join the athletic conference. I look at is as the Big 10 is more like a family of Universities than a playground that some universities play sports on.

 

[iceeater1969]

Chicago used to be in the Big 10. The alliance, under a different name, was formed in the 50s. At it's inception, they invited Chicago to join. Chicago was a founding member of the Big 10, but pulled out and have only completed in division 3 since. (Under different names because division 3 wasn't actually named until the 70s)

Chicago is the only school not in the Big 10 athletic conference to be in the alliance, and they were a founding member who basically dropped sports. Maryland and Rutgers were invited after they agreed to join the athletic conference. I look at is as the Big 10 is more like a family of Universities than a playground that some universities play sports on.

What about bucknell?
They dropped football a long time back. But are back in the patriot league

The future for gt football has lots of scenarios

 

[forensicbuzz]

You keep repeating opinion, yet ignore facts. Tell me, when, in your history, have you ever seen a successful renunciation of a grant of rights? You haven't? Didn't think so. If money was that important, Texas and Oklahoma would already be in the $EC. Know why they are waiting? Grant of rights. Know why UCLA and USC will wait? Grant of rights. You can keep telling yourself that money will be the reason why teams bolt the ACC, but I'm here to tell you that money is the reason they will stay. Specifically, the money they'd lose because of their grant of rights.

As far as the playoff thing goes, you are far from a lone prophet in the wilderness on that front. We knew from the minute they went to the BCS that an eventual playoff was going to happen. It was all a matter of when. You're so busy trying to be the smartest guy in the room you're failing to see the reality around you. I might be "crazy" but I'm going to base my projections on logical outcomes and legal precedent.

Why is the Grand of Rights important to the B1G? I understand the SEC is about eyeballs, but that's not the case for the B1G, households are. Households in a media market have nothing to do with GoR.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Why is the Grand of Rights important to the B1G? I understand the SEC is about eyeballs, but that's not the case for the B1G, households are. Households in a media market have nothing to do with GoR.

The GoR that held the PAC together ends in two years. That's when UCLA and USC will bolt. If it were just an exit fee they'd be gone already. They don't want to pay that fee plus two years of media money to leave. Therefore, since the B1G is about media markets, the lack of media rights means USC and UCLA hold no value until their current GoR expires.

 

[Richard7125]

The next level of money won’t come from conference expansion, it will come from expanded playoffs. The talk of expanded playoffs started before Texas and Oklahoma announced plans to move to the SEC. As soon as the Texas/Oklahoma announcement was made, the expanded playoffs got shut down. With USC and UCLA going to the Big10, power has been consolidated (and somewhat balanced) among the two conferences.

The SEC and Big10 will decide on how many teams and the structure of the playoffs. I’m guessing it will be 12 teams (because that’s what the SEC was pushing before) and those teams will probably be chosen very similarly to how the 4 teams are decided today (small group of experts based loosely on polls). I doubt you will see any automatic qualifiers. The committee will say they hold conference championships very important, until they don’t want to. There will be an ACC team or two in some years. There will probably be 1 Cincinnati type of team in most years. You will probably see 1 to 2 teams from Pac12 and Big12. You will most likely see ND if they are ranked high enough. Most years you will see 3 to 5 SEC teams and 2 to 4 Big10 teams.

 

[slugboy]

Why is the Grand of Rights important to the B1G? I understand the SEC is about eyeballs, but that's not the case for the B1G, households are. Households in a media market have nothing to do with GoR.

Media rights are media rights, whether it’s measured in eyeballs or households
If a network wants to add 500k UVA households for carriage fees, isn’t that still media rights?

 

[Northeast Stinger]

The next level of money won’t come from conference expansion, it will come from expanded playoffs. The talk of expanded playoffs started before Texas and Oklahoma announced plans to move to the SEC. As soon as the Texas/Oklahoma announcement was made, the expanded playoffs got shut down. With USC and UCLA going to the Big10, power has been consolidated (and somewhat balanced) among the two conferences.

The SEC and Big10 will decide on how many teams and the structure of the playoffs. I’m guessing it will be 12 teams (because that’s what the SEC was pushing before) and those teams will probably be chosen very similarly to how the 4 teams are decided today (small group of experts based loosely on polls). I doubt you will see any automatic qualifiers. The committee will say they hold conference championships very important, until they don’t want to. There will be an ACC team or two in some years. There will probably be 1 Cincinnati type of team in most years. You will probably see 1 to 2 teams from Pac12 and Big12. You will most likely see ND if they are ranked high enough. Most years you will see 3 to 5 SEC teams and 2 to 4 Big10 teams.

Add to your scenario favorable brackets for SEC and B1G teams because that’s how the experts will see proper seeding.

 

[Richard7125]

Add to your scenario favorable brackets for SEC and B1G teams because that’s how the experts will see proper seeding.

Yep, but i would also argue if you have 4 teams from a conference, you should put those 4 teams in separate brackets - regardless if it gives the appearance of a favorable placement. It simply makes the most sense from a playoff entertainment perspective.

 

[bobongo]

Chicago used to be in the Big 10. The alliance, under a different name, was formed in the 50s. At it's inception, they invited Chicago to join. Chicago was a founding member of the Big 10, but pulled out and have only completed in division 3 since. (Under different names because division 3 wasn't actually named until the 70s)

Chicago is the only school not in the Big 10 athletic conference to be in the alliance, and they were a founding member who basically dropped sports. Maryland and Rutgers were invited after they agreed to join the athletic conference. I look at is as the Big 10 is more like a family of Universities than a playground that some universities play sports on.

I understasnd the "family" aspect, but there seems to be a conflation of the academic alliance and the athletic conference.
Seems to me the academic alliance is important to research, but the athletic conference isn't.
If Vanderbilt (AAU) left the SEC and joined the B1G, would the move enhance the research aspect of the university?

 

[Richard7125]

It's simple. Not all moves are made for money right now, that's checkers. These guys are playing chess. they're looking 3 or 4 moves down the road. There are many reasons to bring in a school that doesn't immediately affect the bottom line.

I think the checkers vs chess you keep referencing is less about conference expansion and more about the expanded playoffs. Everyone is focused on conference expansion and reacting. The next big revenue stream for both the SEC and Big10 will be the expanded playoffs. Expanded playoffs were thwarted by the Big12, Pac12, ACC and maybe even the Big10 when it was announced Texas and Oklahoma were moving to the SEC. The SEC (and the Big10) hold most of the cards now. They will be able to dictate how the expanded playoffs are architected. They will have a high proportion of the teams in the playoffs and will take a high proportion of the revenue generated. I highly doubt there will be automatic bids because that’s not in the best interest of the SEC.

 

[RonJohn]

I understasnd the "family" aspect, but there seems to be a conflation of the academic alliance and the athletic conference.
Seems to me the academic alliance is important to research, but the athletic conference isn't.
If Vanderbilt (AAU) left the SEC and joined the B1G, would the move enhance the research aspect of the university?

I think the conflation of academics and athletics is part of the Big10. Every member of the conference is a member of the alliance. The only member of the alliance who isn't a member of the conference is Chicaco, who was invited when the alliance was formed, had been a Big10 athletic member but dismantled the sports program. Penn State joined the conference and the alliance at the same time. Nebraska joined the conference and the alliance at the same time. Rutgers and Maryland joined the conference and the alliance at the same time. (Same time is relative. Rutgers and Maryland actually "joined" the alliance a year earlier, but had committed to the conference and were waiting for start athletics) Up to this point, no school has been able to join the alliance without joining the conference and vice-versa.

The alliance pools purchasing power, resources, and influence. If Vanderbilt were to join the Big10 alliance they would gain access to research data and reports from all of the other Big10 schools. I don't know much about GTRI and how it operates so I can't say how beneficial extra governmental influence and access to the other schools data would be.

 

[gameface]

The next level of money won’t come from conference expansion, it will come from expanded playoffs. The talk of expanded playoffs started before Texas and Oklahoma announced plans to move to the SEC. As soon as the Texas/Oklahoma announcement was made, the expanded playoffs got shut down. With USC and UCLA going to the Big10, power has been consolidated (and somewhat balanced) among the two conferences.

The SEC and Big10 will decide on how many teams and the structure of the playoffs. I’m guessing it will be 12 teams (because that’s what the SEC was pushing before) and those teams will probably be chosen very similarly to how the 4 teams are decided today (small group of experts based loosely on polls). I doubt you will see any automatic qualifiers. The committee will say they hold conference championships very important, until they don’t want to. There will be an ACC team or two in some years. There will probably be 1 Cincinnati type of team in most years. You will probably see 1 to 2 teams from Pac12 and Big12. You will most likely see ND if they are ranked high enough. Most years you will see 3 to 5 SEC teams and 2 to 4 Big10 teams.

The SEC, B10 and ND already tried to vote to go to 8 or 12 once and lost. They were held up by the ACC, B12 and PAC. Each conference still only gets one vote.

 

[forensicbuzz]

The GoR that held the PAC together ends in two years. That's when UCLA and USC will bolt. If it were just an exit fee they'd be gone already. They don't want to pay that fee plus two years of media money to leave. Therefore, since the B1G is about media markets, the lack of media rights means USC and UCLA hold no value until their current GoR expires.

No one pays media money. The school just doesn’t earn anything.

My point was that the GoR isn’t the impediment for the B1G that it is for the SEC. B1G will get their $$ regardless of whether the school or their previous conference owns the media rights.

If an ACC team went to the B1G, the B1G Network wouldn’t have to air any of their games to earn money from their market. With the SEC it’s a different animal.