How did Tk let some FSU guy post propaganda on a UT site.

_________________

WRANGLERS 153-55-1 CVFL CHAMPS '04 '05 '09 '12

NFL CHAMPS '29 '30 '31 '36 '39 '44 '61 '62 '65 '66 '67 '96 '10

BW/WAC/MWC CHAMPS '77 '82 '85 '88 '89 '91 '92 '93 '99 '12
['08 NCAA BASEBALL CHAMPS]

FSU? Fresno State University

Did the new SEC/Big 12 alliance and ‘Champions Bowl’ change the thinking of the BCS post season? Is the plus one bowl a better format over four team playoff?

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Is- ... table.html

Let's not forget that Mike Slive originally proposed a "plus 1" not the 4 team playoff we are talking about this year.

Gotta think much of it came from the Big Ten/Pac 12 stance of maintaining the Rose Bowl. That being the case, the SEC/Big 12 partnering up makes sure they have something that could develop into a similar rivalry...annually.

Worst case scenario, you take the Rose and Champions Bowl winners into the final each year. It's a huge improvement over the current 1 vs 2 system.

Not to forget folks, this type of +1, if it happened, means the regular season is key...to the extent that you need to be good enough to win the conference championship to make it to the bowl

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


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.

Quinn,
More from Pac 12 commissioner on plus one bowl from the Wall Street Journal!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... EL+BACHMAN

I gave you a rec

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

Tk, Thanks for your recommendations.

BON's not too big on conference realignment, from time to time we'll get a good thread going but I find it hard to read since the majority of the people don't understand all the minor nuances that most of us do over here.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

You mean they say stuff like SMU and Houston should be in the B12 who cares about Fla St. and Clemson they're way out there. Or why isn't Boise and BYU in the Pac 12?

_________________

WRANGLERS 153-55-1 CVFL CHAMPS '04 '05 '09 '12

NFL CHAMPS '29 '30 '31 '36 '39 '44 '61 '62 '65 '66 '67 '96 '10

BW/WAC/MWC CHAMPS '77 '82 '85 '88 '89 '91 '92 '93 '99 '12
['08 NCAA BASEBALL CHAMPS]

I just had a revelation.....

I look at a map, and with a strong Big XII, how is the PAC going to expand ?
Their footprint now is boxed in at the Rockie Mountains on the east.

So if we say the PAC owns the Mountain times zone, the Pacific time zone, and Hawaii, are there any expansion targets ?

You could pull in the entire state of Idaho by adding Boise State.
You could pull in a rabid mormon viewership wiht BYU.
You coud add Hawaii, but pulling in Hawaii (DUH)
Same with adding a school in Nevada or New Mexico.

Problem - the PAC financial distribution formula is now built on "equal share".
Never mind that UCLA / USC have an audience that dwarfs Washington State (in scenic Pullman, WA).
WSU is grandfathered-in....

But to expand to new TV markets, they could add specific schools in their footprint.
However, it is likely that overall viewership PER SCHOOL would dip, so the TV $ PER SCHOOL would take a hit.

WOULD IT MAKE SENSE to add schools under the proviso that they receive a partial [instead of a full] share ?
Then the concept of adding somewhat smaller schools is no longer economically silly ?

Disadvantages - Over time, Boise State gets P.O.'ed that they receive a 3/4 share, while WSU still receives it's grandfathered full share.

Advantages - Think about the case of adding SMU and Houston to Big XII (both schools are larger than TCU, I believe, but I could be wrong)
They get a partial share.... However, Texas starts including content from TT, TCU, Baylor, SMU, Houston on the Longhorn Network.
Now people might actually want a subscription to the LHN, since here is enough content to want to watch it more than 6 hours per year....

This would seem to be the purest economic model for the whole conference scheme, where each school gets paid by the eyeball,
in that each school would receive money commensurate wiht their actual TV worth, and there would be less incentive to try to create these ridiculous "cliques"...
Schools would then receive the same $ regardless of their association... and be less inclined to enter into these geographically preposterous alignmnets.

At this point, yes, it would make some sense. It's hard to justify any school in the Pac 12's footprint being worthy for expansion. I doubt any of their options would be able to even help their TV contracts just to break even. The options broken down by state populations are:

Utah is 34th (2.8 million), but BYU will NEVER be brought in to the Pac 12 and Utah brought enough of their fans
Nevada is 35th (2.7 million), but their fans split between UNR and UNLV
New Mexico is 36th (2.1 million). UNM would probably bring in most of those fans, especially if they start winning thanks to the Pac 12 money
Idaho is 39th (1.6 million). Boise would bring in the majority of those fans, especially if Idaho downgrades, but there would be some northerners that won't watch them
Hawaii is 40th (1.4 million). Hawaii would obviously bring in all sports fans from this state

Now, I was about to completely disregard all of these options but I noticed that Oregon has a population of around 3.9 million and they have TWO teams in that state. It stands to reason that Oregon State's fan base is probably not much bigger than some of those schools on that list. Worth noting, the states of Nevada and Utah grew the fastest on that list in the last 10 years. But the next question there is how many people in those states actually care about sports. Las Vegas is historically been a poor place for sports.

Nevada and New Mexico would be my pick of possible future expansion assuming the Big 12 schools won't come. New Mexico is a rapidly growing state and their program could definitely grow into something pretty decent. UNM seems to want to keep New Mexico State below them, and should be able to carry the majority of the state's population as well. I'm not as sold on Nevada as they only bring the Reno market and not Las Vegas. BYU would really be the ideal target, if only they were like USC/Stanford and were not religiously affiliated.

That being said, I don't think the Pac-12 expands for at least 13 years. Yes, that number is in reference to the Big 12's signing of the Tier 1 and 2 rights. Maybe in 20 years New Mexico looks really good. Maybe even both Nevada schools at that point. I could see some interest in Hawaii, but then I wonder how a two school regional network could be set up with Hawaii as one of the schools...Hawaii and San Diego St? Something tells me they'll pass. Montana could even be a possibility depending on how far down the road we look.

Maybe the Pac 12 should try to convince the University of British Columbia to get an interest in football? Canadian schools are now allowed to compete in Division II, maybe in 25 years they'd have a possibility? Is the Pac-12 expansion really down to thinking that outside of the box?

Nevada plays in a 19,000 seat erector set of a stadium. UNLV would be the PAC school. None of this matters UNM, UNLV, Hawaii, BSU, BYU are never joining the PAC.

_________________

WRANGLERS 153-55-1 CVFL CHAMPS '04 '05 '09 '12

NFL CHAMPS '29 '30 '31 '36 '39 '44 '61 '62 '65 '66 '67 '96 '10

BW/WAC/MWC CHAMPS '77 '82 '85 '88 '89 '91 '92 '93 '99 '12
['08 NCAA BASEBALL CHAMPS]

Any Big 12 expansion is obviously going to depend on how the BCS post season plays out for football, revenue potential, and when the new commissioner is on the job.

I know everyone is thinking the decision is totally on fact if Florida State or Clemson want to join the Big 12.

This decision really needs to based on the fact if the Big 12 wants to expand. The Big 12 is in the cat bird seat stealing the Texas AD comment and is the entity in power not the other way around. Both Florida State and Clemson are in a wait and see mode to determine if a better option is going to be available for both schools.

I am thinking the Plus One is just a much better system compared to the four team playoff and going to base some assumption on this plan be adopted. We can then project the possibility of what path the BCS will take.

The plus one bowl provides power to the big four conference without declaring or making it obvious in a pecking order that decides which teams get picked for a final four. The plus one also keeps open the availability for Notre Dame, ACC, Big East, and all the formal non AQ conferences it any ranked high enough to get picked over the champions of the SEC/Big 12 or Big Ten/Pac 12 alliance bowls( Rose and Champion Bowls).

In the plus one, there really is only a final two that is determined after the bowls which was basically what the BCS was trying to accomplish all along and added 8 and latter 10 team with at large which cause all kinds of ridiculous issues with AQ etc.

The plus one also provides a second place SEC team playing outside of the SEC/Big 12 alliance bowl an outside chance of making the plus one. The current thought is the final four will only take champions with possibly one open spot for at large for Notre Dame etc.

While most of the time it will be difficult unless your Notre Dame and ranked very high to jump over a Champion or Rose bowl winner, it does open the door for two team from the same conference making the plus one.

The Big 12 championship game alone is not going to make the revenue to justify the cost of expansion with two or four additional teams.

I believe it all comes down the Big 12 TV contact and the reasons the final contract is not sighed yet.

We have the answers two of the three questions and maybe the Big 12 is just waiting until the new commissioner is formally on board to announce the expansion with two additional teams.