NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Fri Oct 31, 2014 7:16 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3199 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204 ... 214  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 11:42 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1572
hendu1976fl wrote:
if offered, Kansas would accept an invitation to the SEC? Slive wants better hoops in the SEC and I can see him really going hard after UNC and Kansas. Kansas offers nothing in terms of TV sets, but their mens hoops team is a national brand.

One would expect that any further SEC expansion would be in the context of adjusting to existing divisions. As we know, the SEC put Texas A&M in the west and Missouri in the east. Scheduling adjustments followed. It took some time to get all members on the same page with it.
It is doubtful the SEC would pursue two more additions to the west for future expansion. I could see one under certain scenarios. There are issues such as Alabama and/or Auburn being willing to shift and the effort to keep respectable balance between the two divisions.

Potential options if appreciable movement could happen:
1. The SEC adds two to the east. Ideally, this may be a North Carolina school and a Virginia school. A UNC/Duke combo was suggested a few years back as a pre-emptive move if the ACC fractured and the B1G further advanced. This would suggest moving Mizzou to the west, assuming there was agreement/consensus.
2. The SEC adds two from the B12. That assumes the B12 is vulnerable and the ACC is not. Which two in the existing west would be open to moving to the east? It would suggest the SEC has lost immediate possibilities for the mid-Atlantic media and recruiting markets. This could be the least preferred option.
3. The SEC adds one to the east (such as UNC or NCSU, or VPI or UVA, or more remotely, Duke) and one to the west (Texas?, OU?, OSU? KU?--all very complicated situations). This could be the most plausible among the options that currently look basically unattainable. As with the ACC, the B12 has bonded partners. Texas A&M broke from it but they wanted to do so. Could another be found? If the SEC does get a desirable school to break-off, they are going to need one more in short order preferable perhaps, in the other direction.

The SEC has been trying to get past the image that it is all about athletics. New additions may not have to be members of AAU, but will need to complement the SEC's ongoing effort to generate an improved academic persona. Adding Texas A&M and Missouri helped.

Movement will take time. It could be twelve years from now or much sooner depending on the revenue flow patterns and the politics surrounding the GoRs. What and who will become a GoR buster should provide intense intrigue. It could first come from the B12 but may not involve the SEC immediately.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:25 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1130
tkalmus wrote:
The only conference not locked in are the PAC12 (as they have a special look-in in their contract in case of expansion).


That's not exactly true. Expansion brought the ACC, SEC, and B1G back to negotiations with their network handlers, even if the results varied or weren't immediate. The SEC did get more money for Missouri and Texas A&M, as they were able to shake free of some of CBS' exclusivity over the network. That money came from ESPN. Depending on who they expand with next, were they to, will probably result in another round of negotiations with either getting more money from CBS, or more freedom from them. Who knows what ESPN does.

The B1G took on expansion because it knew it created a renegotiation. They're the ones who expanded to Nebraska, opened the window for a look-in, and then wanted to double-down on more teams AND B1G-PAC. They didn't get B1G-PAC, but they still came away with more programs and a renegotiation.

The ACC we know expanded to 14 because it got them back to the table. Notre Dame helped do it again, and the Louisville/UMD transfer put it at risk again (although minimally). They're the ones with the whole look-in window thing where its apologists were like "we'll get more, we swear...we're worth it!" 2017 was to be their first one, iirc, but Notre Dame put them right back at the table. The ACC's issue is that their commissioner shouldn't be allowed to negotiate these deals, since they're so horrible at them, even if they have spiffy lawyers.

The PAC's where they are because they wanted the possibility of added programs to remain on the table, and was granted, iirc, even before the Big XII officially came to terms on their deal and GoR (synced). It also didn't hurt them that the network backing them was greedy for content and exposure in the market. And because there was still the possibility (although improbable) that someone could have still walked from the Big XII...

Choosing not to expand because of the options out there and its minimal effects on a contract is not the same as being "locked in" like the Big XII is where there's a GoR synced to a media deal. That's actually something the ACC was better able to address when theirs would auto-renew/regenerate upon any renegotiation (though I wonder if that can hold up legally). Expansion, if done well at this point, WILL lead to something for the conferences. The B1G knows this. The SEC has said as much. The PAC just chooses not to right now. And all but the Big XII can explore that without voiding or suspending their GoR, which both protects the conference from poaching and defection, but also blocks it from freely entering other agreements.

To some extent, I'd actually like to see the Big XII get its CCG with ten teams. The shares topic will probably create some fireworks, and we'll get more information about how that GoR of theirs works.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 3:33 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1463
sec03 wrote:
hendu1976fl wrote:
if offered, Kansas would accept an invitation to the SEC? Slive wants better hoops in the SEC and I can see him really going hard after UNC and Kansas. Kansas offers nothing in terms of TV sets, but their mens hoops team is a national brand.

One would expect that any further SEC expansion would be in the context of adjusting to existing divisions. As we know, the SEC put Texas A&M in the west and Missouri in the east. Scheduling adjustments followed. It took some time to get all members on the same page with it.
It is doubtful the SEC would pursue two more additions to the west for future expansion. I could see one under certain scenarios. There are issues such as Alabama and/or Auburn being willing to shift and the effort to keep respectable balance between the two divisions.

Potential options if appreciable movement could happen:
1. The SEC adds two to the east. Ideally, this may be a North Carolina school and a Virginia school. A UNC/Duke combo was suggested a few years back as a pre-emptive move if the ACC fractured and the B1G further advanced. This would suggest moving Mizzou to the west, assuming there was agreement/consensus.
2. The SEC adds two from the B12. That assumes the B12 is vulnerable and the ACC is not. Which two in the existing west would be open to moving to the east? It would suggest the SEC has lost immediate possibilities for the mid-Atlantic media and recruiting markets. This could be the least preferred option.
3. The SEC adds one to the east (such as UNC or NCSU, or VPI or UVA, or more remotely, Duke) and one to the west (Texas?, OU?, OSU? KU?--all very complicated situations). This could be the most plausible among the options that currently look basically unattainable. As with the ACC, the B12 has bonded partners. Texas A&M broke from it but they wanted to do so. Could another be found? If the SEC does get a desirable school to break-off, they are going to need one more in short order preferable perhaps, in the other direction.

The SEC has been trying to get past the image that it is all about athletics. New additions may not have to be members of AAU, but will need to complement the SEC's ongoing effort to generate an improved academic persona. Adding Texas A&M and Missouri helped.

Movement will take time. It could be twelve years from now or much sooner depending on the revenue flow patterns and the politics surrounding the GoRs. What and who will become a GoR buster should provide intense intrigue. It could first come from the B12 but may not involve the SEC immediately.


1. Is most likely.
2. Is least likely but probably most desirable (we disagree here) assuming its Texas and Oklahoma (any other combo I then would agree with you) but like a said it'll likely never happen. But if it did moving Alabama/Auburn would almost be required in order to balance out the divisions (plus they seem to have more
3. I'm not sure who other than Kansas the SEC would want to poach, and even then Kansas isn't bring much other than bball and partial share of the KC market which Mizzou is already part owner. If the Big 12 goes down and the ACC gets enough good TV money to fend off the poachers then I could also see WVU getting the spot in the East but I would assume that the SEC would likely rather stay at 14 in that case as KU/WVU don't really move the needle.

I agree that AAU member are most likely, though powerhouse options like FSU, OU, and VPI would be the obvious exceptions, though I assume they'd rather have UT, UNC, Duke, UVA if they were able to just pick their members at will.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 3:41 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1463
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
tkalmus wrote:
The only conference not locked in are the PAC12 (as they have a special look-in in their contract in case of expansion).


That's not exactly true. Expansion brought the ACC, SEC, and B1G back to negotiations with their network handlers, even if the results varied or weren't immediate. The SEC did get more money for Missouri and Texas A&M, as they were able to shake free of some of CBS' exclusivity over the network. That money came from ESPN. Depending on who they expand with next, were they to, will probably result in another round of negotiations with either getting more money from CBS, or more freedom from them. Who knows what ESPN does.

The B1G took on expansion because it knew it created a renegotiation. They're the ones who expanded to Nebraska, opened the window for a look-in, and then wanted to double-down on more teams AND B1G-PAC. They didn't get B1G-PAC, but they still came away with more programs and a renegotiation.

The ACC we know expanded to 14 because it got them back to the table. Notre Dame helped do it again, and the Louisville/UMD transfer put it at risk again (although minimally). They're the ones with the whole look-in window thing where its apologists were like "we'll get more, we swear...we're worth it!" 2017 was to be their first one, iirc, but Notre Dame put them right back at the table. The ACC's issue is that their commissioner shouldn't be allowed to negotiate these deals, since they're so horrible at them, even if they have spiffy lawyers.

The PAC's where they are because they wanted the possibility of added programs to remain on the table, and was granted, iirc, even before the Big XII officially came to terms on their deal and GoR (synced). It also didn't hurt them that the network backing them was greedy for content and exposure in the market. And because there was still the possibility (although improbable) that someone could have still walked from the Big XII...

Choosing not to expand because of the options out there and its minimal effects on a contract is not the same as being "locked in" like the Big XII is where there's a GoR synced to a media deal. That's actually something the ACC was better able to address when theirs would auto-renew/regenerate upon any renegotiation (though I wonder if that can hold up legally). Expansion, if done well at this point, WILL lead to something for the conferences. The B1G knows this. The SEC has said as much. The PAC just chooses not to right now. And all but the Big XII can explore that without voiding or suspending their GoR, which both protects the conference from poaching and defection, but also blocks it from freely entering other agreements.

To some extent, I'd actually like to see the Big XII get its CCG with ten teams. The shares topic will probably create some fireworks, and we'll get more information about how that GoR of theirs works.


Just a little off.

Yes, CBS reworked the SEC's deal, but that was for their network, NOT because they added A&M/Mizzou (even though that's how they framed it), they received no additional money other than for their network (which was already in the works) and ESPN slightly overpaid them for their rights to offset the expense of adding A&M/Mizzou (as this obviously gave the network WAY more content).

The Big Ten had a look-in deal IF they added a CCG (which they did with Nebraska) but does NOT have one from adding Rutgers/Maryland (they are just going to renegotiate all the rights next year as the contract is up and I assume they'll likely add in the look-in deal like the PAC12 has).

I'll look up the ACC deal, but I do recall hearing that they got some additional funds from adding ND, so you may be right on that one.

Edit: Verified you were correct about the ACC, also decided to compare last years revenue numbers.
Quote:
B12 - 220.1m - 23m distributed per school (14m for TCU/WVU)
SEC - 314m - 20.9m distributed per school
ACC - 291.7m - 18.8m distributed per school (Not including Maryland, see ND below)
B1G - 318m -25.8m distributed per school (15m for Nebraska)
PAC - 334m - 19.8m distributed per school (10.1m for Utah)
ND - 18.5m - 15m from NBC + estimated 3.5m from ACC

Notes:
B12 - 7.8m surplus held by conference, to be dispersed equally if not spent by end of year. Does not include 3rd tier rights (UT/LHN=15m, KU/OU=6m, rest average 2-4m annually)
SEC - Does not include any the SEC Network money
ACC - Maryland did not receive any TV money in 2013-14, ACC held onto 10% of revenue
B1G - Renegotiation of 1st/2nd tier rights looming in addition to further carriage agreements of the BTN in NYC/NJ and MD/DC
PAC - smaller distribution due to start-up cost for PAC12Network (should increase by 3 million per school next year) and the P12N did NOT distribute any revenue to the conference this year (despite making a small profit though unclear if that was from one time payouts from providers like Dish)
ND - Receives 1/15th of 20% from ACC revenue (will know exact number next year)


Commentary:
B12 - In pretty good shape, UT #1 with 38m, KU/OU tie for #2 with 29m though eventually the smaller schools will be making less than schools in all other conferences except the ACC as it is now.
SEC - Once network gets picked up by a few more major carriers we'll know better numbers, but they likely look be around 30 million per school though the SEC crazies are claiming it'll be near 40.
ACC - This conference will earn the the least unless they expand, which will allow them to look-in and renegotiate, I expect once the Big 3 networks are up and running they might add a 15th/16th like UConn or Cincy in order to reset their contract ESPN (and possibly push to get a network as they'd be only only all-in conference w/o one) to be closer to what the PAC/B1G/SEC are pulling in.
B1G - just added NYC/NJ and MD/DC to their carriage agreement with Time Warner, Comcast and Cablevision, and looks to set records with its tier 1/2 renegotiation like the PAC12 did...rumored to be looking to payout schools 45 million after all said and done though that number is likely ~10m to high.
PAC12 - see SEC above^.
ND - Numbers are smaller than I expected, major reason to join a conference when every conference is distributing more money than you are receiving. I think this pretty clearly shows that their deal with the ACC is just ramping them (and their fans) up to join a conference come 2025, but if the ACC deals aren't competitive then, that conference will most likely be the B1G.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 08, 2014 2:45 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:33 am
Posts: 312
Location: Austin, Texas
Baylor's new stadium is getting some finishing touches. They laid down the turf and got it painted in the last few days. Check the Onsite View to see the turf.

They are also building a track complex to the east...across the parking lot and little inlet harbor. Or to the right of the panoramic pic.

Pretty sweet for $260 million.

http://www.baylorbears.com/sports/m-foo ... m-cam.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 3:53 pm 
Offline
Sophomore
Sophomore

Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:01 pm
Posts: 62
sec03 wrote:
hendu1976fl wrote:
if offered, Kansas would accept an invitation to the SEC? Slive wants better hoops in the SEC and I can see him really going hard after UNC and Kansas. Kansas offers nothing in terms of TV sets, but their mens hoops team is a national brand.

One would expect that any further SEC expansion would be in the context of adjusting to existing divisions. As we know, the SEC put Texas A&M in the west and Missouri in the east. Scheduling adjustments followed. It took some time to get all members on the same page with it.
It is doubtful the SEC would pursue two more additions to the west for future expansion. I could see one under certain scenarios. There are issues such as Alabama and/or Auburn being willing to shift and the effort to keep respectable balance between the two divisions.

Potential options if appreciable movement could happen:
1. The SEC adds two to the east. Ideally, this may be a North Carolina school and a Virginia school. A UNC/Duke combo was suggested a few years back as a pre-emptive move if the ACC fractured and the B1G further advanced. This would suggest moving Mizzou to the west, assuming there was agreement/consensus.
2. The SEC adds two from the B12. That assumes the B12 is vulnerable and the ACC is not. Which two in the existing west would be open to moving to the east? It would suggest the SEC has lost immediate possibilities for the mid-Atlantic media and recruiting markets. This could be the least preferred option.
3. The SEC adds one to the east (such as UNC or NCSU, or VPI or UVA, or more remotely, Duke) and one to the west (Texas?, OU?, OSU? KU?--all very complicated situations). This could be the most plausible among the options that currently look basically unattainable. As with the ACC, the B12 has bonded partners. Texas A&M broke from it but they wanted to do so. Could another be found? If the SEC does get a desirable school to break-off, they are going to need one more in short order preferable perhaps, in the other direction.

The SEC has been trying to get past the image that it is all about athletics. New additions may not have to be members of AAU, but will need to complement the SEC's ongoing effort to generate an improved academic persona. Adding Texas A&M and Missouri helped.

Movement will take time. It could be twelve years from now or much sooner depending on the revenue flow patterns and the politics surrounding the GoRs. What and who will become a GoR buster should provide intense intrigue. It could first come from the B12 but may not involve the SEC immediately.


When I originally posted my comment, it should have read, "Would Kansas accept an offer from the SEC?"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 4:24 pm 
Offline
Sophomore
Sophomore

Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:01 pm
Posts: 62
tkalmus wrote:
sec03 wrote:
hendu1976fl wrote:
if offered, Kansas would accept an invitation to the SEC? Slive wants better hoops in the SEC and I can see him really going hard after UNC and Kansas. Kansas offers nothing in terms of TV sets, but their mens hoops team is a national brand.

One would expect that any further SEC expansion would be in the context of adjusting to existing divisions. As we know, the SEC put Texas A&M in the west and Missouri in the east. Scheduling adjustments followed. It took some time to get all members on the same page with it.
It is doubtful the SEC would pursue two more additions to the west for future expansion. I could see one under certain scenarios. There are issues such as Alabama and/or Auburn being willing to shift and the effort to keep respectable balance between the two divisions.

Potential options if appreciable movement could happen:
1. The SEC adds two to the east. Ideally, this may be a North Carolina school and a Virginia school. A UNC/Duke combo was suggested a few years back as a pre-emptive move if the ACC fractured and the B1G further advanced. This would suggest moving Mizzou to the west, assuming there was agreement/consensus.
2. The SEC adds two from the B12. That assumes the B12 is vulnerable and the ACC is not. Which two in the existing west would be open to moving to the east? It would suggest the SEC has lost immediate possibilities for the mid-Atlantic media and recruiting markets. This could be the least preferred option.
3. The SEC adds one to the east (such as UNC or NCSU, or VPI or UVA, or more remotely, Duke) and one to the west (Texas?, OU?, OSU? KU?--all very complicated situations). This could be the most plausible among the options that currently look basically unattainable. As with the ACC, the B12 has bonded partners. Texas A&M broke from it but they wanted to do so. Could another be found? If the SEC does get a desirable school to break-off, they are going to need one more in short order preferable perhaps, in the other direction.

The SEC has been trying to get past the image that it is all about athletics. New additions may not have to be members of AAU, but will need to complement the SEC's ongoing effort to generate an improved academic persona. Adding Texas A&M and Missouri helped.

Movement will take time. It could be twelve years from now or much sooner depending on the revenue flow patterns and the politics surrounding the GoRs. What and who will become a GoR buster should provide intense intrigue. It could first come from the B12 but may not involve the SEC immediately.


1. Is most likely.
2. Is least likely but probably most desirable (we disagree here) assuming its Texas and Oklahoma (any other combo I then would agree with you) but like a said it'll likely never happen. But if it did moving Alabama/Auburn would almost be required in order to balance out the divisions (plus they seem to have more
3. I'm not sure who other than Kansas the SEC would want to poach, and even then Kansas isn't bring much other than bball and partial share of the KC market which Mizzou is already part owner. If the Big 12 goes down and the ACC gets enough good TV money to fend off the poachers then I could also see WVU getting the spot in the East but I would assume that the SEC would likely rather stay at 14 in that case as KU/WVU don't really move the needle.

I agree that AAU member are most likely, though powerhouse options like FSU, OU, and VPI would be the obvious exceptions, though I assume they'd rather have UT, UNC, Duke, UVA if they were able to just pick their members at will.


I hear a lot of talk about balancing out the divisions if the SEC and the Big 10 were to expand even further. My question is wouldn't they put the teams in pods of 4? After a 3 year cycle you would have played every team in the conference if you go to a 9 game schedule. Hypothetically, if the SEC added Va Tech and NC State you could have 4 pods of:
West: A&M, LSU, Arkansas, Mizzou
South: Bama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Miss State
East: Florida, Georgia. South Carolina, NC State
North: Va Tech, UK, Tenn, Vandy

As an example, Florida would play their division/pod-3 games, play the North 1 year-4 games, and have a traditional rival in each of the other two divisions (Bama, LSU, and UK when the Gators played one of the other divisions.) That would be a 9 game schedule. Then you have a 4 team conference playoff = more TV $.

If the Big 10 expands to 16 and the ACC follows along with 16 teams, wouldn't it be easier to schedule this way? I understand it would have to be approved by a vote, but if 3 conferences of 16 teams vote for it, the two smaller P5 conferences of 10 and 12 might get outvoted if they were even against it in the first place.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:29 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 6:12 pm
Posts: 26
Adding NC State and Virginia Tech is acceptable as long as the ACC survives, but if the Big Ten grabs North Carolina and Virginia it makes the SEC look bad. Still, I like the setup of your plan aside from that. Here's how I'd make the rest of the P4 pods...

Big Ten A - Rutgers, Penn State, Maryland, Ohio State
Big Ten B - Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue
Big Ten C - Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern
Big Ten D - Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri*

ACC A - Notre Dame, Boston College, Syracuse, Connecticut
ACC B - Pittsburgh, Louisville, West Virginia, Virginia, Tech
ACC C - North Carolina, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia
ACC D - Georgia Tech, Clemson, Miami, Florida State

PAC A - Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
PAC B - Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah
PAC C - Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC
PAC D - Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State

* SEC redone for Missouri's move
SEC A - Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State
SEC B - Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina State
SEC C - Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Virginia Tech
SEC D - LSU, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Baylor

TCU, Iowa State and Kansas State are no longer in the P4 in my setup. Still...

New Conference A - TCU, Iowa State, Kansas State, UTEP (+ Rice/Houston/SMU ?)
New Conference B - New Mexico, Utah State, Nevada, UNLV (+ BYU ?)
New Conference C - Colorado State, Air Force, Wyoming, Boise State (+ Northwestern FCS school.... Montana, Eastern Washington ?)
New Conference D - Hawaii, Fresno State, San Diego State, San Jose State (+ Western WAC school... Northern Arizona, Grand Canyon?)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:00 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1463
hendu1976fl wrote:
I hear a lot of talk about balancing out the divisions if the SEC and the Big 10 were to expand even further. My question is wouldn't they put the teams in pods of 4? After a 3 year cycle you would have played every team in the conference if you go to a 9 game schedule. Hypothetically, if the SEC added Va Tech and NC State you could have 4 pods of:
West: A&M, LSU, Arkansas, Mizzou
South: Bama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Miss State
East: Florida, Georgia. South Carolina, NC State
North: Va Tech, UK, Tenn, Vandy

As an example, Florida would play their division/pod-3 games, play the North 1 year-4 games, and have a traditional rival in each of the other two divisions (Bama, LSU, and UK when the Gators played one of the other divisions.) That would be a 9 game schedule. Then you have a 4 team conference playoff = more TV $.

If the Big 10 expands to 16 and the ACC follows along with 16 teams, wouldn't it be easier to schedule this way? I understand it would have to be approved by a vote, but if 3 conferences of 16 teams vote for it, the two smaller P5 conferences of 10 and 12 might get outvoted if they were even against it in the first place.


I get what your saying but the reason people don't talk about pods in the SEC is all the rivals, it makes it really hard to navigate a schedule year in and year out if Tenn has to play Florida, Bama, Georgia, Vandy and Kentucky. It's just going to piss too many people off. I think the cross division rivals will break before they go to pods as most are forced except Bama/Tenn, UGA/Aub, and UF/LSU (and LSU wants to quit that one).

Pods would work for the ACC because it's such a hodgepodge of schools with random history and the biggest issue would just revolve around UNC/UVA.

South - Miami, FSU, GT, Clemson (not changing unless raided)
North - ND, Pitt, Syracuse, BC (ND's pods they can pick anyone up North)
East - UNC, NCSU, Duke, Wake (primarily NC pod but could include VA school after raid)
West -UVA, VPI, Louisville, #14 (left over pod based around Louisville and additions like Cincy and WVU)

Pods in the B1G could work.

West- Nebraska, Iowa
Minnesota (could go West or South w/ Wisc)
Wisconsin (could go West or South)
South - Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue
Indiana (could go South or North)
North - UM, MSU, tOSU
East - MD, PSU, Rutgers

But it's perfect for a PAC16 w/o the Texhoma 4
North (NW), West (Cali), South (AZ/Mtn), East (Texhoma)

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 16, 2014 7:16 am 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
tkalmus wrote:
hendu1976fl wrote:
I hear a lot of talk about balancing out the divisions if the SEC and the Big 10 were to expand even further. My question is wouldn't they put the teams in pods of 4? After a 3 year cycle you would have played every team in the conference if you go to a 9 game schedule. Hypothetically, if the SEC added Va Tech and NC State you could have 4 pods of:
West: A&M, LSU, Arkansas, Mizzou
South: Bama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Miss State
East: Florida, Georgia. South Carolina, NC State
North: Va Tech, UK, Tenn, Vandy

As an example, Florida would play their division/pod-3 games, play the North 1 year-4 games, and have a traditional rival in each of the other two divisions (Bama, LSU, and UK when the Gators played one of the other divisions.) That would be a 9 game schedule. Then you have a 4 team conference playoff = more TV $.

If the Big 10 expands to 16 and the ACC follows along with 16 teams, wouldn't it be easier to schedule this way? I understand it would have to be approved by a vote, but if 3 conferences of 16 teams vote for it, the two smaller P5 conferences of 10 and 12 might get outvoted if they were even against it in the first place.


I get what your saying but the reason people don't talk about pods in the SEC is all the rivals, it makes it really hard to navigate a schedule year in and year out if Tenn has to play Florida, Bama, Georgia, Vandy and Kentucky. It's just going to piss too many people off. I think the cross division rivals will break before they go to pods as most are forced except Bama/Tenn, UGA/Aub, and UF/LSU (and LSU wants to quit that one).

Pods would work for the ACC because it's such a hodgepodge of schools with random history and the biggest issue would just revolve around UNC/UVA.

South - Miami, FSU, GT, Clemson (not changing unless raided)
North - ND, Pitt, Syracuse, BC (ND's pods they can pick anyone up North)
East - UNC, NCSU, Duke, Wake (primarily NC pod but could include VA school after raid)
West -UVA, VPI, Louisville, #14 (left over pod based around Louisville and additions like Cincy and WVU)

Pods in the B1G could work.

West- Nebraska, Iowa
Minnesota (could go West or South w/ Wisc)
Wisconsin (could go West or South)
South - Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue
Indiana (could go South or North)
North - UM, MSU, tOSU
East - MD, PSU, Rutgers

But it's perfect for a PAC16 w/o the Texhoma 4
North (NW), West (Cali), South (AZ/Mtn), East (Texhoma)



I like it...especially the Pac-16 scenario ;)

_________________
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: Wed Jul 16, 2014 10:34 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1719
So how do you work the 4 pods into a schedule ?

My thoughts:
could go with 9 game schedule -
play your 3 pod-mates every year, and play 1-1/2 of the other pods (6 teams) each year.
This would be a 4 year rotation to play the other 12 teams each home and away.

Then to establish a conference champion, do you require semi-finals prior to a CCG ?
Maybe Pod winner with best record (seed #1) hosting Pod winner with worst record (seed #4),
and other semi-fianl matching up seed #2 hosting seed #3.

If we ended up with 64 teams in 4 leagues of 16 (each 4 pods) this could work.
Right now FBS is 12+10+14+14+14.5 = 64.5
Let's boot Notre Dame !!! MOTION CARRIED !!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 16, 2014 11:54 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1463
tute79 wrote:
So how do you work the 4 pods into a schedule ?

My thoughts:
could go with 9 game schedule -
play your 3 pod-mates every year, and play 1-1/2 of the other pods (6 teams) each year.
This would be a 4 year rotation to play the other 12 teams each home and away.

Then to establish a conference champion, do you require semi-finals prior to a CCG ?
Maybe Pod winner with best record (seed #1) hosting Pod winner with worst record (seed #4),
and other semi-fianl matching up seed #2 hosting seed #3.

If we ended up with 64 teams in 4 leagues of 16 (each 4 pods) this could work.
Right now FBS is 12+10+14+14+14.5 = 64.5
Let's boot Notre Dame !!! MOTION CARRIED !!!!

I always go back to this blog post which had a great break down of how a 16 team 4pod schedule could work.

http://www.pacifictakes.com/2011/9/19/2 ... 6-schedule" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The only thing not clear about this post is how the CCG participants are decided but it likely would be the best 2 pods champs although it could lead to some crazy tie breakers, but that already exsists so I don't see this a reason not to go to pods.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 16, 2014 12:47 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:04 pm
Posts: 399
tkalmus wrote:
I get what your saying but the reason people don't talk about pods in the SEC is all the rivals, it makes it really hard to navigate a schedule year in and year out if Tenn has to play Florida, Bama, Georgia, Vandy and Kentucky. It's just going to piss too many people off. I think the cross division rivals will break before they go to pods as most are forced except Bama/Tenn, UGA/Aub, and UF/LSU (and LSU wants to quit that one).


Good point and insightful.

tkalmus wrote:
Pods would work for the ACC because it's such a hodgepodge of schools with random history and the biggest issue would just revolve around UNC/UVA.

South - Miami, FSU, GT, Clemson (not changing unless raided)
North - ND, Pitt, Syracuse, BC (ND's pods they can pick anyone up North)
East - UNC, NCSU, Duke, Wake (primarily NC pod but could include VA school after raid)
West -UVA, VPI, Louisville, #14 (left over pod based around Louisville and additions like Cincy and WVU)

Pods in the B1G could work.

West- Nebraska, Iowa
Minnesota (could go West or South w/ Wisc)
Wisconsin (could go West or South)
South - Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue
Indiana (could go South or North)
North - UM, MSU, tOSU
East - MD, PSU, Rutgers


Smart observation, particularly on the ACC hodgepodge. The ACC can market their diversity of schools if a couple more of additions happen. The ACC needs to have a full fb commitment from Notre Dame in a flex model. Also, the ACC does need WVU for #16 though they will not acknowledge it. The fb-oriented schools in the ACC would be looking for another who delivers in fb.

tkalmus wrote:
But it's perfect for a PAC16 w/o the Texhoma 4
North (NW), West (Cali), South (AZ/Mtn), East (Texhoma)


Concur, the pod system looks near ideal for the Pac12 should they expand. However, the Pac12 comes across as a very protectionist conference, and some of their members may look at it as taking away much of their luster on the west coast. Scott presented it once before and maybe it was close to reality, so the next try it could be more successful. It'll take some compromising on both ends, with the status quo crowd in the Pac12, and with Texas on their supplemental network package. When the Pac12 later turned down an OU/OSU addition, they missed on the opportunity to put together 1/2 of the additional puzzle pieces. The Pac12's Commissioner has tried earnestly to be forward thinking, but they have a few schools that are stubborn and feel threatened with change. But, if the B1G, SEC, and maybe the ACC go to 16 each, pressure shall be on the Pac12 to make a move, and the B12 is open for extraction.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 16, 2014 9:07 pm 
Offline
Sophomore
Sophomore

Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:07 pm
Posts: 66
tute79 wrote:
So how do you work the 4 pods into a schedule ?

My thoughts:
could go with 9 game schedule -
play your 3 pod-mates every year, and play 1-1/2 of the other pods (6 teams) each year.
This would be a 4 year rotation to play the other 12 teams each home and away.

Then to establish a conference champion, do you require semi-finals prior to a CCG ?
Maybe Pod winner with best record (seed #1) hosting Pod winner with worst record (seed #4),
and other semi-fianl matching up seed #2 hosting seed #3.

If we ended up with 64 teams in 4 leagues of 16 (each 4 pods) this could work.
Right now FBS is 12+10+14+14+14.5 = 64.5
Let's boot Notre Dame !!! MOTION CARRIED !!!!

You're close, but forget about Pod winners and semi-finals. They are unnecessary.

4 pods of 4 schools each.
2 pods per division.
2 divisions.
2 pods switch division every 2 years.
9 game conference schedule.
Play schools in your pod every year.
Play all other schools twice in 4 years (1 home, 1 away).
2 division champions play in CCG.

E.g., in years 1 & 2, Division 1 consists of Pods A & C, while Division 2 consists of Pods B & D;
in years 3 & 4, Division 1 consists of Pods A & D, while Division 2 consists of Pods B & C.
So you always play all 7 schools in your division, plus 2 from the opposite pod (A opposite B, C opposite D), meaning each school from the opposite pod twice in 4 years (1 home, 1 away).

But there are pod-based solutions for conferences of 12, 14, 18, 20, and 22 schools, as well. These require conference schedules of 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12 games, respectively. In all cases you play 3 schools every year, and all other schools twice in 4 years. Also, play all schools in your division every year, plus 2 schools from the opposite pod.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 16, 2014 10:54 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:45 am
Posts: 219
Dennis wrote:
You're close, but forget about Pod winners and semi-finals. They are unnecessary.

4 pods of 4 schools each.
2 pods per division.
2 divisions.
2 pods switch division every 2 years.
9 game conference schedule.
Play schools in your pod every year.
Play all other schools twice in 4 years (1 home, 1 away).
2 division champions play in CCG.

E.g., in years 1 & 2, Division 1 consists of Pods A & C, while Division 2 consists of Pods B & D;
in years 3 & 4, Division 1 consists of Pods A & D, while Division 2 consists of Pods B & C.
So you always play all 7 schools in your division, plus 2 from the opposite pod (A opposite B, C opposite D), meaning each school from the opposite pod twice in 4 years (1 home, 1 away).

But there are pod-based solutions for conferences of 12, 14, 18, 20, and 22 schools, as well. These require conference schedules of 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12 games, respectively. In all cases you play 3 schools every year, and all other schools twice in 4 years. Also, play all schools in your division every year, plus 2 schools from the opposite pod.


Using this, PAC example:

Year 1 & 2

Pacific Division: California pod - California, Stanford, UCLA, USC & Northwest pod - Washington, Washington St, Oregon, Oregon St
Western Division: Southwest pod - Arizona, Arizona St, Utah, Colorado & Central pod - Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St

Year 1: Oregon schedule - Washington, Washington St, Oregon St, California, Stanford, UCLA, USC + Arizona, Arizona St
Year 2: Oregon schedule - Washington, Washington St, Oregon St, California, Stanford, UCLA, USC + Utah Colorado

Year 3 & 4

Pacific Division: California pod - California, Stanford, UCLA, USC & Southwest pod - Arizona, Arizona St, Utah, Colorado
Western Division: Northwest pod - Washington, Washington St, Oregon, Oregon St & Central pod - Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St

Year 3: Oregon schedule - Washington, Washington St, Oregon St, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St + Arizona, Arizona St
Year 4: Oregon schedule - Washington, Washington St, Oregon St, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St + Utah, Colorado


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3199 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204 ... 214  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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