NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:56 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3247 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209 ... 217  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Aug 01, 2014 10:33 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 6:12 pm
Posts: 30
The MWC only dealt with the "No Sunday Play Rule" because it was such a small-time conference. No power conference would ever acquiesce to such nonsense. Surely the custodians on BYU's campus aren't taking one off for the man upstairs. Likewise for the local doctors, hospital staff, nursing home workers, hotel employees, police force, firemen etc. On that note, are BYU students not allowed to work on homework? Is an aspiring BYU musician not allowed to practice?

To believe in a religion is one thing, to impose it on another is wrong. The fact that [random MWC school] must play BYU earlier in the day on Saturday is ludicrous. Think about that. You have the "host" university told when and only when it can and host BYU. This all done for protecting BYU's public relations within their own fan base (literally nobody else cares if BYU plays on Sunday or not). Darn near the same number of Mormons attend Utah, Utah State or collectively all universities not named BYU and ex-BYU Cougar Steve Young is on ESPN every Sunday working away for the NFL as an alum, by default still working for/promoting BYU in the process.

I'm not a religious man, but if I was, you would have a hard time convincing me that any almighty figure would give a rip about whether or not BYU played sports on Sundays or not. How ego-maniacal does one have to be to assume that the Creator of Man is somehow impressed by one's willingness to "take a day off from football for him"? Seriously, the Creator of all life on a planet, overseer of billions is not going to care whether or not a bunch of 24-year old Mormon kids suit up against UNLV on "his day". But if BYU really wanted to make a point, they should shut down the entire town and turn the electricity off Saturdays at 11:59 just so nobody can get paid to monitor the town's power grid on a Sunday. Once you make one relatively insane presumption e.g. God is watching and God approves of our making UNLV play an earlier day game on Saturday just in case that same God throws a few lightning bolts on the field in the fourth quarter of a 7:30 PM kicked off game... you have to take that presumption to the limit or else God still disapproves of your overall decision not to play which is now just a hypocritical one rather than some sort of payment or tribute.

BYU's own Bob the Plumber cannot fix a broken toilet on a Sunday either. That thing must flood the streets until midnight. Bob pays taxes. Bob is doing what anyone would consider to be "work". The genesis of BYU's stance is "no work on the Lord's day" and taken even further into crazy town, the unpaid BYU football players are not doing work. As in, watching them play wouldn't be work either (but having concession stands workers there would be) but as you're watching BYU's blowout of UNLV if your toilet does break then don't call Bob until midnight. Bob's a believer too. And just to be sure you don't need to call Bob, hold it in. Do all that town-wide and the Lord just might give a rip.

My view, it's just a gimmick like Notre Dame's "independent will" (come on, they practically play the same 8 teams every year and mix up the other 4 like everyone else) or Texas' insane "we would rather play TCU stance re: playing A&M". It's just branding and I'm almost positive BYU would play on Sundays for a Big 12 invite. If the BYU football program is just a marketing branch for the religion (and BYU Presidents have said this is the case) then surely the BYU football team (ala Steve Young prominently working Sundays on ESPN) would stand to promote Mormonism from a wider-reaching stage by playing in the second best conference involving Sunday play or not.

Long story short, if BYU ever cuts the bologna maybe a P5 will take them seriously enough to be invited. It's very doubtful that will happen anytime soon. Also, the whole not letting minorities enroll until the 1960's is probably a foreshadowing of how they would handle say an openly gay BYU athlete or a BYU athlete who takes some extreme conservative view like refusing to play against a team with openly gay players. I'm not even arguing right or wrong here, just stating the obvious that BYU is a potentially giant public relations nightmare for any major conference. If they spout off now as an Indy or West Coast, nobody cares. Refuse to play against the next Michael Sam as a member of the Big 12? Toast. Would be kicked out of the conference in nanoseconds. No serious P5 would ever consider the possibility of BYU for these reasons well before "Sunday Play" is even discussed.

Of the Go5's out west, Colorado State could pull of a P5 invite with a stadium upgrade and a return to their 1990's level of football success wherein they were basically what Fresno State is now. Maybe Hawaii just for the Pac-12 to be able to broadcast occasionally relevant conference games midnight east coast and 9 PM West Coast. For example, Hawaii is the Indiana of the Pac-14 but Oregon plays them last and needs to win to go 12-0 or to qualify of the Pac-14 Title Game. Just as long as one of the teams involved matters, it would be well-watched overall. New Mexico with another 20-30 years of state population influx could be too large to ignore as well. BYU is after those three and probably not even in the top 10. Honestly, Rice has a better shot.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 9:49 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1152
bigshotbob wrote:
Of the Go5's out west, Colorado State could pull of a P5 invite with a stadium upgrade and a return to their 1990's level of football success wherein they were basically what Fresno State is now. Maybe Hawaii just for the Pac-12 to be able to broadcast occasionally relevant conference games midnight east coast and 9 PM West Coast. For example, Hawaii is the Indiana of the Pac-14 but Oregon plays them last and needs to win to go 12-0 or to qualify of the Pac-14 Title Game. Just as long as one of the teams involved matters, it would be well-watched overall. New Mexico with another 20-30 years of state population influx could be too large to ignore as well. BYU is after those three and probably not even in the top 10. Honestly, Rice has a better shot.


I've been high on Colorado State for some time, and there's no way they go that far on a stadium project if there isn't some assurance they go up a level somewhere. Be it the top to the PAC, or to the Big XII, or if there's a splinter group of MWC, BYU, and certain AAC schools...that's too much for a school like that. What's more like a mid-major fix up is the $4.5 million being spent to renovate Moby. Put the two together, and it's still a lot of money spent on the revenue-earning sport venues. But, it even there...they're spending on this over there, too...or hoping to. Yowzas. That's a school on the up. I wonder if Colorado's admission to the PAC also furthers the stream of coastal students to Ft. Collins.

Hawaii...people think it's a portal to eastern Asia...I think their value has been the other islands and some of the recruiting out that way. BYU's had a problem with them, or so it looks, as they don't want to play out there and have an outpost that they themselves have used for recruiting the islands. Hawaii's a decently sized system...roughly 50K. While they aren't to the PAC what Rutgers supposedly is to the Big Ten, it wouldn't be a bad or unwise direction for the conference. If anything's holding back UH, it's that operating budget.

As for the Big XII, whatever they do, or rather, whenever they decide to expand or replace, I think they need to pull to the west. Some of those schools now in the Mountain West, like CSU, USU, and even UNR...they're swelling, even if slowly (admittedly, UNR is still pretty small, but grew by almost 3K students over the last decade). Maybe the Cougars never get their rub...but that part of the map is not barren in terms of sizable institutions. Personally...someone's got to tap one of the Cal State schools...SDSU, SJSU, FSU...it's a huge system.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 9:15 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7455
Kansas City Star article (previously posted in another thread)discussing Big 12 and SEC athletic department subsidies at http://www.kansascity.com/sports/colleg ... 84117.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2014 11:13 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1572
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
bigshotbob wrote:
Of the Go5's out west, Colorado State could pull of a P5 invite with a stadium upgrade and a return to their 1990's level of football success wherein they were basically what Fresno State is now. Maybe Hawaii just for the Pac-12 to be able to broadcast occasionally relevant conference games midnight east coast and 9 PM West Coast. For example, Hawaii is the Indiana of the Pac-14 but Oregon plays them last and needs to win to go 12-0 or to qualify of the Pac-14 Title Game. Just as long as one of the teams involved matters, it would be well-watched overall. New Mexico with another 20-30 years of state population influx could be too large to ignore as well. BYU is after those three and probably not even in the top 10. Honestly, Rice has a better shot.


I've been high on Colorado State for some time, and there's no way they go that far on a stadium project if there isn't some assurance they go up a level somewhere. Be it the top to the PAC, or to the Big XII, or if there's a splinter group of MWC, BYU, and certain AAC schools...that's too much for a school like that. What's more like a mid-major fix up is the $4.5 million being spent to renovate Moby. Put the two together, and it's still a lot of money spent on the revenue-earning sport venues. But, it even there...they're spending on this over there, too...or hoping to. Yowzas. That's a school on the up. I wonder if Colorado's admission to the PAC also furthers the stream of coastal students to Ft. Collins.

Hawaii...people think it's a portal to eastern Asia...I think their value has been the other islands and some of the recruiting out that way. BYU's had a problem with them, or so it looks, as they don't want to play out there and have an outpost that they themselves have used for recruiting the islands. Hawaii's a decently sized system...roughly 50K. While they aren't to the PAC what Rutgers supposedly is to the Big Ten, it wouldn't be a bad or unwise direction for the conference. If anything's holding back UH, it's that operating budget.

As for the Big XII, whatever they do, or rather, whenever they decide to expand or replace, I think they need to pull to the west. Some of those schools now in the Mountain West, like CSU, USU, and even UNR...they're swelling, even if slowly (admittedly, UNR is still pretty small, but grew by almost 3K students over the last decade). Maybe the Cougars never get their rub...but that part of the map is not barren in terms of sizable institutions. Personally...someone's got to tap one of the Cal State schools...SDSU, SJSU, FSU...it's a huge system.

There appears to be a considerable amount of stadium upgrades going on. Some places, it's simply to modernize and do required renovations. Others, are after enhancing seating capacities and expand box seating. One would think that major conferences take these factors into account. Maybe Nippert Stadium at Cincy has been a factor holding them back; or do they plan to use Paul Brown Stadium more? Even Nippert is having upgrading. It would seem all major conferences would want schools with a minimum of 50K and fill them--and that would be too low for some.
In the SEC for example, Scott Field at Mississippi State had an underground field irrigation system well over thirty years ago-- extraordinarily innovative for the time. Recently they had upgraded and expanded to near 62k, now the largest stadium in the State, slightly ahead of Ole Miss who also had recently expanded their stadium. Miss. State's newer state-of-the-art electronic scoreboard is cited as one of the best in college fb, and they are adding another one to the other end zone.
But even 60K seating is on the low end of the SEC. Only Vandy at around 47K is below that level, but really not bad compared to most private schools with on-campus stadiums. TCU got in the B12 with having a similar size, and they tend to show more empty seats on many game days.
In the west, SDSU uses a pro stadium. That seems OK, but many universities using pro venues don't fill them very well. CSU, Wyoming, NMU, SJS, etc., don't have very sizable stadiums. Of course that's always something that can be improved upon with higher promises, but no need to broaden seating if the fannies are not there for sitting. This brings one back to the BYU point--they are the one non-P5 school that pretty much can assure they can deliver 60k-plus for a home game.
Cincy doesn't do it, nor does UCF, USF, Houston, Memphis, UConn, etc. Some non-P5 stadiums look decent though, like UTEP's Sun Bowl.

Saw where 'the Dude' recently suggested that the SEC told WVU their stadium (60k-plus) was less than adequate pertaining to expansion. I take that with a grain of salt because there were multiple factors involved why WVU was not admitted to the SEC as #14. But it is a point, fb stadiums with home attendance figures do matter. However, in the last dozen years, it did not appear to be an overwhelming factor for the ACC in bringing in BC, Syracuse, Miami, and Pitt--with the later two using pro stadiums often with sparse crowds. This added to others such as WFU and Duke with sizes in their 30s'. Duke plans to renovate, but can't be very bold for seating.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2014 11:33 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1572
bigshotbob wrote:
Darn near the same number of Mormons attend Utah, Utah State or collectively all universities not named BYU and ex-BYU Cougar Steve Young is on ESPN every Sunday working away for the NFL as an alum, by default still working for/promoting BYU in the process.

And it may be noted, UTAH STATE is scheduled to play at Tennessee on SUNDAY, August 31, 2014 at 6:00 PM on the SEC Network.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2014 12:48 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1152
The venue matter appears to be pretty legit. Schools toss that money to show commitment to athletics, and if you spend a lot, you get to liken yourself with others who have the pockets who spend that money. Of course, you want a good product on the field, too, but the investment is what it is.

Renovations are renovations, but some of these programs aren't subtle about the intentions of their projects. Rentals...it's hard to say. If Tulane finds itself holding a major conference invitation in a few years, Yulman and the other projects in that $200m+ spree will have paid off in ways where the Superdome couldn't. And while the Superdome is probably better suited for hosting major-conference football, I think schools still think there's something more important about owning your own venue. I think SMU believed it needed their own space rather than sharing with the Cowboys. It got them a Big East invite. Houston's got theirs coming, and they got a BE invite, too. Heck, even Charlotte knew to build its own venue (with optional upgrade potential)...to a spiffy CUSA it went (or so it was when they signed on).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2014 10:55 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1572
Looking at this new autonomy mechanism granted to the major conferences, I tend to believe the B12 is here to stay, largely as it is now. The term 'Power 5' if not branded from Madison Avenue, it looks as if the advertising and corporate enterprises have adapted the slogan. Would they seek to transition that to the 'Power 4'? That's doubtful, re-branding to a lower figure could be a tougher sales job.

So, 64 conference members plus Notre Dame are the tidy group? They may see adding schools to that select group would mean less revenue for the totality of distributions among themselves. And, does it mean that any re-alignment would be from among themselves, not any outsiders from the Group of 5; now almost formally regulated to be second class?

The Power 5's common adversary had been the collection of non-P5 FBS schools, FCS schools, lower division fb schools, and other schools without fb programs, all part of NCAA decision-making. They are viewed as impediments for the P-5 to make even more money. Those receiving less, will be expected to relinquish more in terms of revenue and influence.

The Power 5 will have first grabs at recruits. A recruit on the fence as to whether he wants to go to Auburn or Florida A&M will have even more distinct criteria to it.

Reducing governance and structural ties to the non-power 5 is just the first step. More intermediary acts shall follow. The biggest drama is yet to come. These power 5 conferences are going to turn on each other in a much bigger way. Fights won't be just about raiding a school from another within the group, but conflict in terms of self-governing rules, increasing player compensations, equity within, and playoff and bowl placements. Network battles will be a part of it.

The B12 could be comparatively less stronger in the political plays simply because of having a fewer number of schools. On the other hand, they simply align with one or more other power conferences to protect their interests as internal power 5 disputes arise. At some point, it will be time to get the popcorn.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2014 3:41 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 753
Location: Columbus, OH
Did anyone else see this in the headlines? http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11320309/majority-power-five-coaches-want-power-five-only-schedules

Personally, I think the standard for the power 5 should be 11 games among other power 5 leagues (preferably 9 or 10 conference games) and 1 game against a Group of 5 school---no more FCS games. That's a pretty standard schedule for all the leagues and gives the schools who want to play an "easy" team and get an extra home game that chance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2014 5:29 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2699
Location: Phoenix Arizona
sec03 wrote:
Looking at this new autonomy mechanism granted to the major conferences, I tend to believe the B12 is here to stay, largely as it is now. The term 'Power 5' if not branded from Madison Avenue, it looks as if the advertising and corporate enterprises have adapted the slogan. Would they seek to transition that to the 'Power 4'? That's doubtful, re-branding to a lower figure could be a tougher sales job.

So, 64 conference members plus Notre Dame are the tidy group? They may see adding schools to that select group would mean less revenue for the totality of distributions among themselves. And, does it mean that any re-alignment would be from among themselves, not any outsiders from the Group of 5; now almost formally regulated to be second class?

The Power 5's common adversary had been the collection of non-P5 FBS schools, FCS schools, lower division fb schools, and other schools without fb programs, all part of NCAA decision-making. They are viewed as impediments for the P-5 to make even more money. Those receiving less, will be expected to relinquish more in terms of revenue and influence.

The Power 5 will have first grabs at recruits. A recruit on the fence as to whether he wants to go to Auburn or Florida A&M will have even more distinct criteria to it.

Reducing governance and structural ties to the non-power 5 is just the first step. More intermediary acts shall follow. The biggest drama is yet to come. These power 5 conferences are going to turn on each other in a much bigger way. Fights won't be just about raiding a school from another within the group, but conflict in terms of self-governing rules, increasing player compensations, equity within, and playoff and bowl placements. Network battles will be a part of it.

The B12 could be comparatively less stronger in the political plays simply because of having a fewer number of schools. On the other hand, they simply align with one or more other power conferences to protect their interests as internal power 5 disputes arise. At some point, it will be time to get the popcorn.

sec03, I have been in agreement the Power 5 conference are here to stay for a while now and the autonomy NCAA vote was just one of the final locks to ensure my thoughts on this subject continue to be on target for the Power five leagues.

Several factors were contributing to the stability of the major five conferences which lead to the ability to push for the NCAA Autonomy vote. The GORs were significant and most believe they are to keep the big boys in the conference such as Texas or a Florida State. I see the GOR were more beneficial to keeping stability within the power 5 conferences for the so called non big boys and ensure the majority of the members were united and wanted to be in that conference. The GORs were the indication the big boys of the conference were finally committed to the conference and wanted to ensure no issues with the other schools continue to fracture and look for an out such as Nebraska which left the Big 12 for the Big Ten.

The other factor I believe in strongly is 14 is the absolute maximum a conference can expand and be functional. It is the primary reason the Big 12 had naming rights to both the Big 12 and the Big 14 and not a Big 16 or Big 20 etc. There was a lot of research that went into these studies when the Big 12 formed. The Big Ten spent almost a year in determining potential candidates for expansion and stopped at 14. There was no reason the conference had to stop at 14 other than common sense. We can discuss the pods in 16 type member formats and in the end it just more divisions and breaking unity which is why conferences formed in the first place to improve rivalries and regional interest.

With this autonomy vote, the future is clear to expand the playoff from 4 to 8 or possibly more and no conference wants to risk multiple conference playoff games before making the college playoff. Creating pods do not support this makeup and breaking into two eight team division is basically splitting into two conferences.

While it may be coincidental, the ACC and Maryland law suite just settled the day after the autonomy vote, I believe there go hand in hand.

Like or not these five power conferences are in bed together and any instability in any impacts the entire group of 65 schools.

I just do not see any movement between each group unless the five conferences worked together to align teams or schools such as the NFL moved teams between divisions.

There is just too much money involved in the future to create any instability in these group of five power conferences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 09, 2014 12:17 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1481
lash wrote:
sec03 wrote:
Looking at this new autonomy mechanism granted to the major conferences, I tend to believe the B12 is here to stay, largely as it is now. The term 'Power 5' if not branded from Madison Avenue, it looks as if the advertising and corporate enterprises have adapted the slogan. Would they seek to transition that to the 'Power 4'? That's doubtful, re-branding to a lower figure could be a tougher sales job.

So, 64 conference members plus Notre Dame are the tidy group? They may see adding schools to that select group would mean less revenue for the totality of distributions among themselves. And, does it mean that any re-alignment would be from among themselves, not any outsiders from the Group of 5; now almost formally regulated to be second class?

The Power 5's common adversary had been the collection of non-P5 FBS schools, FCS schools, lower division fb schools, and other schools without fb programs, all part of NCAA decision-making. They are viewed as impediments for the P-5 to make even more money. Those receiving less, will be expected to relinquish more in terms of revenue and influence.

The Power 5 will have first grabs at recruits. A recruit on the fence as to whether he wants to go to Auburn or Florida A&M will have even more distinct criteria to it.

Reducing governance and structural ties to the non-power 5 is just the first step. More intermediary acts shall follow. The biggest drama is yet to come. These power 5 conferences are going to turn on each other in a much bigger way. Fights won't be just about raiding a school from another within the group, but conflict in terms of self-governing rules, increasing player compensations, equity within, and playoff and bowl placements. Network battles will be a part of it.

The B12 could be comparatively less stronger in the political plays simply because of having a fewer number of schools. On the other hand, they simply align with one or more other power conferences to protect their interests as internal power 5 disputes arise. At some point, it will be time to get the popcorn.

sec03, I have been in agreement the Power 5 conference are here to stay for a while now and the autonomy NCAA vote was just one of the final locks to ensure my thoughts on this subject continue to be on target for the Power five leagues.

Several factors were contributing to the stability of the major five conferences which lead to the ability to push for the NCAA Autonomy vote. The GORs were significant and most believe they are to keep the big boys in the conference such as Texas or a Florida State. I see the GOR were more beneficial to keeping stability within the power 5 conferences for the so called non big boys and ensure the majority of the members were united and wanted to be in that conference. The GORs were the indication the big boys of the conference were finally committed to the conference and wanted to ensure no issues with the other schools continue to fracture and look for an out such as Nebraska which left the Big 12 for the Big Ten.

The other factor I believe in strongly is 14 is the absolute maximum a conference can expand and be functional. It is the primary reason the Big 12 had naming rights to both the Big 12 and the Big 14 and not a Big 16 or Big 20 etc. There was a lot of research that went into these studies when the Big 12 formed. The Big Ten spent almost a year in determining potential candidates for expansion and stopped at 14. There was no reason the conference had to stop at 14 other than common sense. We can discuss the pods in 16 type member formats and in the end it just more divisions and breaking unity which is why conferences formed in the first place to improve rivalries and regional interest.

With this autonomy vote, the future is clear to expand the playoff from 4 to 8 or possibly more and no conference wants to risk multiple conference playoff games before making the college playoff. Creating pods do not support this makeup and breaking into two eight team division is basically splitting into two conferences.

While it may be coincidental, the ACC and Maryland law suite just settled the day after the autonomy vote, I believe there go hand in hand.

Like or not these five power conferences are in bed together and any instability in any impacts the entire group of 65 schools.

I just do not see any movement between each group unless the five conferences worked together to align teams or schools such as the NFL moved teams between divisions.

There is just too much money involved in the future to create any instability in these group of five power conferences.


I agree with the sentiment.

The P5 are here and will play nice until they figure out this new system.

BUT (<<<<<<big but) if the Big 12 can't be competitive with the other 4 conferences either on the field or in the boardroom, then I don't see as being here to stay...

People are already talking about how easy OU and or Baylor's schedule are ("they basically just play each other and Texas and they get in the Playoff"). Let that happen for a year or two and then the other 4 force (this won't happen right away) them to add 2 (Cincy and UConn) to get a championship game. How's the TV money going to look when it's watered down by 2 more teams that dilute not only the $payout but also the strength of the fb league? Texas and OU at least will not hang around.

After that (and assuming it's just those 2 (which is highly unlikely IMO) they add Houston and BYU will this conference of 12 be equal to everyone else's 14 or 16?
Baylor, Houston, TXTech, TCU, OKSU, BYU, KSU, KU, ISU, Cincy, WVU, UConn.

Also the only expanding market in the Big 12 is Texas. When contracts are renegotiated in 2025, does anyone think that WV, IA, KA, or OK are going to grow as fast as the new footprints of the other Power4? Assuming stipends, trusts, and addition costs are lying in wait just around the corner, money is going to matter even more than it did before. Why would a dominate school, in a dominate region like Texas, or a national brand like Oklahoma, stay in the Big12 and risk falling further behind even a little when compared to the other P4?

For Texas the Big12-2-2+2 was a short term fix to weigh their options. If Texas and OU want to join the PAC12, SEC or B1G they aren't going to be turned down (assuming the LHN isn't an issue).

The term "Power 5" means nothing. It's simply a way to designate who get the "BCS" bids. If UT/OU abandon ship do we expect the bowls to resign with the B12? The ACC had to pull a deal with the devil (ND) and the SEC/B1G to find a spot this time around. Does anyone really think that the Sugar Bowl or the SEC will want to continue the relationship with the Big12 when it's top dog is Baylor, K State or BYU and some AACers like Houston? Not a chance, that will shift to the B1G #2 and a 1v1 game will be set up with the ACC.

Without a BCS bowl tie in the Big12 becomes the AAC.

Now that being said...we don't know what could happen in the NCAA governing...

Could their vote be taken away by the other four? Or could/would the full DI need to make that change? If the Power 4 want the Big12 out, they simply have to play their trump card again and threaten to take their ball and start their own basketball tournament. I think 5 is a good number for governing and establishing a majority or super majority vote so I would keep the 5th vote but possibly have it represent all the Gang of 5+Big12.

Sorry, went off on a tangent there, but basically I wouldn't count on the status quo past 2025. These decisions aren't going to stop that train, especially if the Big12 ends up being one of the lesser conferences in fb over the next decade (i.e. No championships, fewer playoff bids, less media attention, and less ranked v ranked match ups)(the last two are almost guaranteed as it's been mathematically proven that round robin play increases losses and produces lower average rankings which is one of the reasons the SEC/Big12 were so successful over the P12/B1G, plus when you add in the lack of population in nonTexas Big12 the media will always choose a SEC, West or East coast team to highlight).

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 10, 2014 10:49 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1572
lash wrote:
[The other factor I believe in strongly is 14 is the absolute maximum a conference can expand and be functional. It is the primary reason the Big 12 had naming rights to both the Big 12 and the Big 14 and not a Big 16 or Big 20 etc. There was a lot of research that went into these studies when the Big 12 formed. The Big Ten spent almost a year in determining potential candidates for expansion and stopped at 14. There was no reason the conference had to stop at 14 other than common sense. We can discuss the pods in 16 type member formats and in the end it just more divisions and breaking unity which is why conferences formed in the first place to improve rivalries and regional interest.

That first sentence there, Lash, indeed has merit when it comes to conference football. Certainly it's not been about a shortage of in-conference schools to play; and adjustments to it have had their challenges. I believe they are finding out in the pursuit of more markets for TV, reaching for new recruiting grounds, and trying to project more dominance and power, they are often messing with their core structures, how divisions align, and who gets to play who and when. That can make some a bit unhappy about internal scheduling.

Your last sentence is also a good point.

I do think conferences such as the B1G and SEC will eventually reach 16 (maybe)---but the functional question remains. For example, if UNC and UVA called up the B1G or the SEC and said they are ready to join, expansion kicks in. But as was noted, with the GoRs' active, those select, hot items in the B12 and the ACC will stay put for a long time.

tkalmus wrote:
The term "Power 5" means nothing. It's simply a way to designate who get the "BCS" bids.

While I concur it is basically an informal slogan; it's identity has gone and going more way beyond simply the BCS concept, with the autonomy moves into structured governance reaching into issues way beyond bowls and the playoffs. Also, everything from Nike to Chick-Fil-A shall ride the tide.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 13, 2014 12:21 am 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 6:12 pm
Posts: 30
"Power 4" sounds better from from a marketing standpoint. Say it fast and it's "powerful" say it normally and it implies more power than a "Power 5". For example, if the same/more number of schools are the members, each "power" in the "Power 4" has more power now (with added schools). Likewise, "Power 65" doesn't sound powerful at all since 65 schools have the power. "Power 2" would be pushing it, but even a "Power 3" sounds good--despite no ring to it. And yes, I agree "Power 5" sounds good and will be used by all media types starting this fall.

e.g. There was a "Fab Five" once, Chris Weber left and next year it was "Fab Four". Zero loss in brand recognition. More if anything as it had been building up to a third season off two Final Fours.

Other examples of "Four"...

Marvel Comics - Fantastic Four
The Beatles - dubbed the "Fab Four"

One notable example of "Three"... LeBron James Era Miami Heat known all over the planet as the "Big Three". Allen-KG-Pierce Celtics retroactively called the original "Big Three" for starting the trend. New one right now in Cleveland (if Love joins) will be called one.

To keep this post expansion related, capitalism dictates Texas will seek a more lucrative conference which will in turn lead the inevitable transition (doesn't have to depend on Texas, but I think it will happen because of them) from a P5 to a P4.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:24 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1731
It seems to me as though once the Power 5 isolate themselves (at least in terms of football) from the "Group of 5",
there will inevitably be discussions about restructuring the Power 5 conference to further increase revenue.
5 conferences is awkward - 4 works much better in terms of feeding into an NFL-type playoff format.

Someone like ESPN will provide the carrot, dangling millions of dollars and sugesting something like 4 - 18 team conferences.
Notre Dame will choose to go all in - rather than have their FB become irrelevant. So once you have 65, you need to move to 72, I suppose.

ACC might add UConn, Cincy, WVU (and Notre Dame Football)
Big Ten could add Mizzou, ISU, KU, KState.
SEC could add Oklahoma schools and 2 Texas Schools.
PAC could add 6 schools, starting with Big XII remnants and then several schools in Mountain / Pacific time zones.

Maybe you have a 16-team playoff with 8 division winners + 8 at-larges. Maybe you have the winners of 16 "pods" feeding into the bracket.

This might take 20 yearrs, but I think this is ultimately wher we are headed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 14, 2014 11:56 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2699
Location: Phoenix Arizona
tute79 wrote:
It seems to me as though once the Power 5 isolate themselves (at least in terms of football) from the "Group of 5",
there will inevitably be discussions about restructuring the Power 5 conference to further increase revenue.
5 conferences is awkward - 4 works much better in terms of feeding into an NFL-type playoff format.

Someone like ESPN will provide the carrot, dangling millions of dollars and sugesting something like 4 - 18 team conferences.
Notre Dame will choose to go all in - rather than have their FB become irrelevant. So once you have 65, you need to move to 72, I suppose.

ACC might add UConn, Cincy, WVU (and Notre Dame Football)
Big Ten could add Mizzou, ISU, KU, KState.
SEC could add Oklahoma schools and 2 Texas Schools.
PAC could add 6 schools, starting with Big XII remnants and then several schools in Mountain / Pacific time zones.

Maybe you have a 16-team playoff with 8 division winners + 8 at-larges. Maybe you have the winners of 16 "pods" feeding into the bracket.

This might take 20 yearrs, but I think this is ultimately wher we are headed.

If we are talking about consolidation of conferences, then two is better than four.

Less assume the theory is the conference networks are the driving force to consolidation that everyone believe will drive future expansion and consolidation.

The Pac 12 and LHN are not performing as well as predicted and will falter is this scenario and the Big Ten and newly created SEC ESPN network will become the greatest thing since the break up of the old CFA which controlled college football TV before the Oklahoma law suite which allowed the conferences to take control of college football TV.

The Big Ten and Pac 12 with similar academic concerns can just merge with the first of the NFL type conferences a be named the Autonomy North Conference (ANC) of the Autonomy College League (ACL). We have 24 teams and could add or eliminate a couple bottom dwellers or take Notre Dame and some of the ACC northern schools for a total of 32 teams. The north can use the Big Ten Network for scheduling similar to the NFL CBS.

The SEC could take up the reminder of the Big 12 and southern ACC schools and create the Autonomy South Conference (ASC). Likewise the SEC could eliminate a few bottom dwellers or keep at 32.

With Notre Dame forced into the north this scenario would have to eliminate one of the current 65 autonomy schools. You pick it on the school that is eliminated.

Now we can use the SEC network for the south conference teams.

Both the BTN and SECN can rotate televising the national autonomy championship game and each of the BTN and SECN can televise the north and south conference playoff games possibly breaking into four 8 divisions or 8 divisions of four teams in each of the south or north.

College football will no longer need ESPN, ESPN2, Fox, Fox1, ABC, CBS, NBC networks and just keep all the revenue within the BTN and SECN networks during the college football playoff. While we are at it, these 64 schools make it the basketball tournament and just eliminate CBS and the other networks that televise the NCAA march madness and keep the revenue within the BTN and SECN for those schools.

Less go one step forward and why do we need 64 schools when about 32 is the ideal size with 16 schools in each conference for a true NFL type college autonomy league.

Be careful what you wish for in consolidation of conferences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 14, 2014 2:30 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1572
lash wrote:
Be careful what you wish for in consolidation of conferences.


Indeed, it is not something to wish for unless one thinks there is going to be 4 massive regional bodies under centralized control.

Expansion has been done piecemeal with the major conferences over the years. Only the ACC took more than two in a year or so (the 2003 additions of BC, Miami, and VPI with controversy). I don't see them pursuing tradeoffs or dumping members in good standing. Maybe two conferences may end up collaborating involving one or two schools at most, but all parties would need to agree. Such would sound like something Texas may consider doing with the LHN network in tow or negotiating some tier rights accommodations pending a potential to transition to another conference.
14 conference schools get strained and complicated. 16 conference schools look like the maximum to be still called a conference. 18 members or more ends up being an association/federation whereby internal scheduling is significantly diluted. What's the point beyond network ownership unless the agenda is a breakaway league?
________________
Another thing about Missouri. Why the heck did they join the SEC if they don't want to be there for the long-term? That's putting a lot of other schools through significant expense and adjustments if the commitment is shallow and is seen as a purgatory stop. In fairness to Mizzou, such talk is not coming from their leadership. Maybe the power of the B1G needs to stop being over-stated, and the B12's durability is grossly under-stated.

Texas currently has a dang good economic situation and the control they demand. And those Oklahoma and Kansas "pairs"; good luck finding another conference that is willing...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3247 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209 ... 217  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest


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:  
 

 

cron




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