AllTideUp
Tuscaloosa, AL
- 439 comments
- 179 likes given
- 114 likes received
Bio not provided
Yeah, it's the leverage aspect of negotiations that I think would equal the windfall in profits. The size and the quality both would aid the cause.
Along with that, the SEC and ACC in many ways share the same footprint. No other 2 conferences are as close to each other as these 2. If the 2 had some sort of merger then the geographical and cultural ties would not be strained in order to make it work. That's assuming 2 or 3 Northern teams were cut out of the deal...their properties aren't worth as much anyway. If ever a super-conference was going to work then it would be this one because it wouldn't require the inclusion of multiple regions.
If an alliance was ever made. I don't see any reason the contracts would have to be guaranteed long term. If conferences want an out, just make the alliance a 2 year or 4 year deal. If one conference wants out then they have to exercise the option 2 years in advance for example. That way everyone gets enough time to find other scheduling options. I don't think either league would be particularly interested in the breaking an agreement at the last minute as both leagues would be scrambling to find new games.
I think one of the biggest problems in forming this sort of alliance is making sure that each school got enough home games. It might be hard to set things up to work that way being that each school has different needs and ongoing commitments.
I'm in my 30s. For me, it's not so much about what I want as much about what I think is going to happen. Ultimately I just want the SEC to end up on top and I don't think conference realignment is over. The factors driving realignment haven't changed so as far as my suggestion goes I'm just interested in blocking the Big Ten from gaining an advantage.
Also, as MrSEC has written about, the top leagues are probably going to split off into their own division. Add to that that fans are tired of seeing cupcake games. When the split happens, schools will most likely play each other pretty exclusively. So if we have larger leagues then I don't see why we can't have 11 or 12 conference games. If done correctly we can play traditional rivals often and rotate in new blood fairly regularly. If 24 teams, for example, come under the same conference umbrella for mutual benefit in the new order of doing things then I don't think that's a bad thing.
The Big 12 will face another round of defections when their GOR is up as their agreement expires first. What happens to the ACC, I don't know.
I still think a good conclusion to all this would be for the SEC to cut a deal with about 10 ACC schools and form a super-conference. It might have to happen at the end of the GOR, but a 24 school league could work. Take everyone in the ACC except Pitt, Syracuse, Wake, and BC. The amount of content generated by that sort of league would be unmatched by anyone else.
John, you said West Virginia probably wouldn't be in the Big 12 after the end of the current GOR agreement. Do you think there's a legitimate chance they end up in the SEC or is there better fit elsewhere? I know it's too far out to make a good prediction on that, but I'm just picking your brain.
Charlie Weis is one of the worst coaches in the NCAA. The fact that he said the SEC isn't so special is essentially proof of the opposite.
Kansas City isn't a top 30 market? I'm surprised by that.
I might add that the population difference between Big Ten states and SEC states is also relevant. The subscription fees for the BTN are helped by all the medium-sized markets that make their states so populous as well. This is why adding NC and VA to the SEC footprint is such a desire. If they were added then those states would be the 4th and 5th biggest states in the SEC.
Did they comment on whether or not the syndicated SEC Network would still exist?
1 game on CBS, 3 games on SEC Network, I imagine at least 2 games on ESPN/ESPN2? That would leave maybe 1 more game for syndication? Outside of OOC match-ups and cupcake games, you're only going to get a max of 7 SEC games a week.
The only problem with that is that all the schools with OOC rivals are in the same division, but they don't host their OOC rival in the same years. You'd have to alter that schedule somehow to make it work. It makes it harder because the other schools are in another conference naturally.
I'd still love to see 9 SEC games though.
The above scenario is why I think the playoff will be expanded before long. Especially if conference championships are going to be emphasized, there's going to need to be more room for schools at the top of the ladder.
What I'm really talking about though is a change in the order of business. I would love it if all the power conferences did nothing but play each other for 12 games a year. More quality football all the way around.
I understand your bball comparison, but it's a different sport. There are far more basketball games to be played and a different goal in mind. 68 teams make the tournament in bball whereas only 4 will make it in football. That means any team's chances of making the playoff in a given year are pretty small. Meanwhile, there could be more quality games for everyone if the cupcakes were dropped across the board.
I agree that we should go to a division-less format if we're going to stick at 14.
Trouble is coming to Alabama basketball.
"and I'm not sure that's what anyone wants."
Do you really want to see your team play cupcakes every year, especially 2 or 3 of them? I understand the desire to get to a bowl game, but what is the fun of a bowl game if it's not one of the big ones? You get to see your team play a mediocre opponent from another conference in a destination that most people won't even travel to in order to see the game. And most of the destinations for the lower tier of bowls aren't anything special either. Wouldn't it be more fun to play that same team from another conference during the regular season in your own home stadium or as a road game to a another school's campus that's probably at least as interesting as a bowl site? And maybe play 2 or 3 of them in one year depending on how many conference games there are? Bama has had its days where small time bowls were the only option at the end of the year and I would take extra quality games in a heartbeat over bowl games in Shreveport any day.
Not to mention how many more quality games there would be on Sat for the casual fan to watch. Also, the opportunity to see more conference-mates more often. As it stands with 8, we'll see each other once every 6 years at best. I just don't see the downside of more SEC games and more quality games on top of that.
I'd even be ok with 10 conference games. I understand that certain teams want to play schools from other parts of the country or perennial OOC rivals, but why not do both? Instead of scheduling all these cupcakes, just play 12 quality games every year.
10 conference games, 1 OOC rival(for those who have them), and 1 or 2 quality BCS schools to round it out.
That may be the best way to do it. I would agree that taking Option #3 up front may not be the worst move in the long run. It is a quicker check, but presumably there is also a deadline on the contract. I imagine the negotiations called for deadlines and options for the SEC to take their content elsewhere at some point in the future under certain circumstances. With that in mind, the SEC's 3rd Tier rights could become a free agent again after a certain period of time. If ESPN loses status one day then FOX or another company may step up to the plate and pay for the content, which is fully owned by the SEC. Or, in a worse case scenario, if the winds of change affect the current model based on cable/satellite subscriptions in the future then the SEC should be able to get out of this deal with ESPN and not have to take a financial loss through owning what will be an undesirable property. Slive is a lawyer by trade so I can easily see him thinking this way.
All in all, the SEC still owns what matters and that is the content.
This is one of the reasons I've felt that FSU would still be a money-making addition to the SEC despite not adding cable households to the footprint. We'll see what comes to fruition.
Well, they could still win the Big East and get to a BCS game, but I agree they won't compete for a national title.
Ok, I just misread what you wrote. I understand now.
John, question about the subscriber fees.
In one paragraph you said:
"The network’s subscription fee is over $5 and some expect it to go to $7." In the final paragraph though you said you expected the network to charge about $1 a month.
I'm not sure what you mean. How do the numbers reconcile?