NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Sat Sep 20, 2014 2:59 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3162 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Aug 15, 2014 2:30 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 684
Location: Columbus, OH
To answer your question, Missouri may have joined the SEC without intentions of staying long term simply because they saw the two scenarios if they stayed put:

A) remain in a conference dominated by the whims of Texas (and, to some extent, Oklahoma)--Best case scenario
B) get left behind on a sinking ship if/when the Texlahoma 4 leave

If the SEC was willing to take them the clear option was to accept even if they felt the Big Ten was a better geographic and institutional match


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 16, 2014 12:29 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1445
ACC will get its network with ESPN putting the four remaining power conferences in the ESPN camp (SEC/ACC) or the FOX camp (B1G/PAC).

The Big12 will lose the Texhoma4 to the PAC16, and the B1G will take KU. They'll try to survive with AAC/MWC replacements plus a school like BYU or NILL but they're champ will likely not be picked over a 3rd or even 4th place team from a P4 conference.

The ACC will lose 2 to the SEC and likely another to the B1G (though they could add ISU or UConn).

The ACC will replace their loses with the remaining eastern power schools (formally of the Big East) WVU and UConn, and add NDfb plus a 16th in Cincy (if raided by the B1G then that last spot could go anywhere but Temple is my best guess.

This will all happen around the time the bowl contracts are re-upped in 2025 and I assume the end result will look something like the below and will automatically incorporate the playoffs into them.

Bowl- Conf1 v Conf2 (if it had been in place last year Bama gets bumped for Stanford)
Rose- PAC v B1G (tOSU v Oregon) 7 v 10
Fiesta- PAC v ACC (#1 FSU v #4 Stanford) 1 v 4 PLAYOFF
Cotton- PAC v SEC (Alabama v Oklahoma) 5 v 11
Sugar- SEC v B1G (#2 Auburn v #3 Mich St) 2 v 3 PLAYOFF
Peach- SEC v ACC (Mizzou v Clemson) 8 v 12
Orange- ACC v B1G (Louisville v Wisconsin) 18 v 19
7th- Go5 v At Large P4 (Baylor v South Carolina) 6 v 9
8th - At Large P4 Conf1 v At Large P4Conf2 (OkSU v LSU) 13 v 16

All top 20 match ups. This year was a bit PAC16 heavy (though they obviously would have had a few more loses in the new alignment playing each other) so 14 ASU and 16 UCLA wouldn't have made the cut but they still have the minor bowls to fill (Alamo/Holiday). It would have been a shame to not see 15 UCF but they likely will be invited to the new Big12 where they would have played Baylor and would have beat them in conference to secure that bid anyways (but ironic as they would have to rematch with SC).

The committee will pick the playoff teams first, then make sure to select 3 from every major conference, the best Go5 school, and then an at large selection for the final three spots. Then they would seed the schools based on best match ups (P4 conferences with only 3 bids will just be shuffled around their 3 bowls making sure they are close in the rankings but a P4 conference with 5 bids can be manipulated to adjust for the best match ups in ranking, history, and for TV. In the above example #5 Alabama could play the best non playoff team from the PAC, ACC, Go5, or At Large (in this case also the PAC) and after realizing their options (Ore, OU, Bay, Clem) the OU game was still the best made for TV option available.

But this system most years would take all the best match ups (big plus for TV), give each conference 3 automatic tie-ins (plus for P4 Conference), maintain some tradition with the bowls (plus for fans), and give the best conference with up to 5 elite teams (like the SEC) the ability to place them in quality games and receive the payouts they deserve.

I see the future of post season college football along these lines, no automatic playoff spots (this avoids a 2-3 loss participant) and the flexibility to mix the old in with the new. If they go to an 8 team playoff then I'm not so sure how this system could turn out (no way they play 3 rounds at bowls, attendance would be horrid) and what would happen to the bowls if they pull all/most of the top 10 match ups?

I can't believe I just typed this much on an iPad. I hope this was interesting, now I'm going to go have another beer.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 16, 2014 10:45 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1552
fighting muskie wrote:
To answer your question, Missouri may have joined the SEC without intentions of staying long term simply because they saw the two scenarios if they stayed put:

A) remain in a conference dominated by the whims of Texas (and, to some extent, Oklahoma)--Best case scenario
B) get left behind on a sinking ship if/when the Texlahoma 4 leave

If the SEC was willing to take them the clear option was to accept even if they felt the Big Ten was a better geographic and institutional match

Muskie, as always, appreciate your reflective, contributive responses for good discussion. To clarify, that was intended as a rhetorical question. Of course (A) and (B) need not contradict or conflict with one another---frustrated with Texas political dominance---vs---fear being left behind by Texas (and company). Yep, it could have been a Catch 22. They may not want to be a TCU-style, repetitive, leaping horned frog either when it come to conference membership---a difference level from G5 kind of jumps.

Missouri is really a very mild example of geographical/institutional/cultural variables of the forced press of a puzzle piece as it pertains to the SEC.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 16, 2014 11:08 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1552
tkalmus wrote:
ACC will get its network with ESPN putting the four remaining power conferences in the ESPN camp (SEC/ACC) or the FOX camp (B1G/PAC).

The Big12 will lose the Texhoma4 to the PAC16, and the B1G will take KU. They'll try to survive with AAC/MWC replacements plus a school like BYU or NILL but they're champ will likely not be picked over a 3rd or even 4th place team from a P4 conference.

The ACC will lose 2 to the SEC and likely another to the B1G (though they could add ISU or UConn).

The ACC will replace their loses with the remaining eastern power schools (formally of the Big East) WVU and UConn, and add NDfb plus a 16th in Cincy (if raided by the B1G then that last spot could go anywhere but Temple is my best guess.

This will all happen around the time the bowl contracts are re-upped in 2025 and I assume the end result will look something like the below and will automatically incorporate the playoffs into them.

Bowl- Conf1 v Conf2 (if it had been in place last year Bama gets bumped for Stanford)
Rose- PAC v B1G (tOSU v Oregon) 7 v 10
Fiesta- PAC v ACC (#1 FSU v #4 Stanford) 1 v 4 PLAYOFF
Cotton- PAC v SEC (Alabama v Oklahoma) 5 v 11
Sugar- SEC v B1G (#2 Auburn v #3 Mich St) 2 v 3 PLAYOFF
Peach- SEC v ACC (Mizzou v Clemson) 8 v 12
Orange- ACC v B1G (Louisville v Wisconsin) 18 v 19
7th- Go5 v At Large P4 (Baylor v South Carolina) 6 v 9
8th - At Large P4 Conf1 v At Large P4Conf2 (OkSU v LSU) 13 v 16

All top 20 match ups. This year was a bit PAC16 heavy (though they obviously would have had a few more loses in the new alignment playing each other) so 14 ASU and 16 UCLA wouldn't have made the cut but they still have the minor bowls to fill (Alamo/Holiday). It would have been a shame to not see 15 UCF but they likely will be invited to the new Big12 where they would have played Baylor and would have beat them in conference to secure that bid anyways (but ironic as they would have to rematch with SC).

The committee will pick the playoff teams first, then make sure to select 3 from every major conference, the best Go5 school, and then an at large selection for the final three spots. Then they would seed the schools based on best match ups (P4 conferences with only 3 bids will just be shuffled around their 3 bowls making sure they are close in the rankings but a P4 conference with 5 bids can be manipulated to adjust for the best match ups in ranking, history, and for TV. In the above example #5 Alabama could play the best non playoff team from the PAC, ACC, Go5, or At Large (in this case also the PAC) and after realizing their options (Ore, OU, Bay, Clem) the OU game was still the best made for TV option available.

But this system most years would take all the best match ups (big plus for TV), give each conference 3 automatic tie-ins (plus for P4 Conference), maintain some tradition with the bowls (plus for fans), and give the best conference with up to 5 elite teams (like the SEC) the ability to place them in quality games and receive the payouts they deserve.

I see the future of post season college football along these lines, no automatic playoff spots (this avoids a 2-3 loss participant) and the flexibility to mix the old in with the new. If they go to an 8 team playoff then I'm not so sure how this system could turn out (no way they play 3 rounds at bowls, attendance would be horrid) and what would happen to the bowls if they pull all/most of the top 10 match ups?

I can't believe I just typed this much on an iPad. I hope this was interesting, now I'm going to go have another beer.

Tkalmus, I'm appearing to be a bigger fan of the B12 than you are ;) .

There's some interesting alliances developing. The SEC and B12 seem to be getting further tight with this P5 movement continuing to develop as they further dive into more issues external to expansion. The SEC-B12 did that bowl deal two years ago. It is understandable in terms of the politics, power plays, and certain practicalities. But, it is also odd given the strained relations that Texas A&M and Missouri now have with certain schools in the B12. It appears from the SEC standpoint, survival of the B12 is in their immediate interest. The ACC? Bring them along in partnership, and use them later to serve a particular purpose. Even the ACC and the B12 have been collaborating about procedures for determining conference titles.

The B1G is still trying to strengthen bonds with the PAC12. The PAC12 had earlier dissed some of the B1G's outreach on certain efforts such as a scheduling agreement. Maybe there is commonality in thinking between the two regarding issues such as advancing playoff arrangements, player compensations, and network-related reach.

There may be conference alliances forming with the P5 to pursue self-serving strategies. They're looking at each other intensely now as the G5 are getting sidelined.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2014 12:08 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1445
Late night posting again...

Yes I'm about done with the Big12. Short term it works, but it's not a long term plan.

Just about any other conference would be better for Texas.

It's not just about fb success, it's about TV dollars, markets, eyeballs and academics.

Big 12-UT has 1 fb power OU & 1 bball power KU, the same 2 are the only market dominate schools. They only have 2 AAU schools (ISU/KU). The others are bit players in their markets, have generally mediocre ratings in games w/o UT/OU in fb or UT/KU in bball.

Personally I don't mind the tag-a-longs, I would love for the PAC to take TT, OSU, and KSU, but those schools plus 2 small private schools (TCU/BU) and 2 outlier schools (ISU/WVU) don't bring anything to the contract negotiations. Any increase will come from the value of UT/OU so why not take our value and add it to a better conference that will give us more of a return.

ISU in the B1G wouldn't be a horrible pickup. WVU in the ACC would be a great pickup. But neither are good for the Big12 long term. 1 private school in a major market would be okay (Vandy, Duke, NWU), but 2 small private schools 1 of which in a tiny market isn't great especially when they are in the same state along with 2 other major schools (same philosophy works for WF/Duke in the ACC).

We have no CCG and lose a chance to increase our OOC SOS as we only have 3 OOC games. And we lost that game because we play all 4 schools in the North every year which are typically the worst games of the year that many UT fans don't go to anyways.

I think the PAC16 w/ pods would be the best option and the SEC w/ OU would be #2.

The PAC16 would give us OU, TT, OSU each year and either of the below.
USC, Cal, AZ, CU, Ore, WSU for 2 years
Stan, UCLA, ASU, Utah, UW, OrSU for the next 2 years
vs the Big 12 schedule
BU, TCU, KSU, KU, ISU, WVU

But that being said the SECw fb would be really fun, and the only way to make it more attractive with most fans in Texas would be to drop MSU for Vandy or possibly swap for KU.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2014 6:33 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2686
Location: Phoenix Arizona
tkalmus wrote:
Late night posting again...

Yes I'm about done with the Big12. Short term it works, but it's not a long term plan.

Just about any other conference would be better for Texas.

It's not just about fb success, it's about TV dollars, markets, eyeballs and academics.

Big 12-UT has 1 fb power OU & 1 bball power KU, the same 2 are the only market dominate schools. They only have 2 AAU schools (ISU/KU). The others are bit players in their markets, have generally mediocre ratings in games w/o UT/OU in fb or UT/KU in bball.

Personally I don't mind the tag-a-longs, I would love for the PAC to take TT, OSU, and KSU, but those schools plus 2 small private schools (TCU/BU) and 2 outlier schools (ISU/WVU) don't bring anything to the contract negotiations. Any increase will come from the value of UT/OU so why not take our value and add it to a better conference that will give us more of a return.

ISU in the B1G wouldn't be a horrible pickup. WVU in the ACC would be a great pickup. But neither are good for the Big12 long term. 1 private school in a major market would be okay (Vandy, Duke, NWU), but 2 small private schools 1 of which in a tiny market isn't great especially when they are in the same state along with 2 other major schools (same philosophy works for WF/Duke in the ACC).

We have no CCG and lose a chance to increase our OOC SOS as we only have 3 OOC games. And we lost that game because we play all 4 schools in the North every year which are typically the worst games of the year that many UT fans don't go to anyways.

I think the PAC16 w/ pods would be the best option and the SEC w/ OU would be #2.

The PAC16 would give us OU, TT, OSU each year and either of the below.
USC, Cal, AZ, CU, Ore, WSU for 2 years
Stan, UCLA, ASU, Utah, UW, OrSU for the next 2 years
vs the Big 12 schedule
BU, TCU, KSU, KU, ISU, WVU

But that being said the SECw fb would be really fun, and the only way to make it more attractive with most fans in Texas would be to drop MSU for Vandy or possibly swap for KU.

tkalmus, I agree with Sec03 and have much more confidence in the future of the Big 12. Maybe you have got caught up in all the hype from ESPN on SEC network and perceived benefits for Texas A&M. I never take ESPN sports journalism seriously or maybe better stated as objective on any subject that does not benefit ESPN. ESPN is just always looking out for its own interest in promoting the SEC network. We really do not know how successful this network will be. Just because it has a lot of households does not indicate everyone in the nation will be watching.

Speaking of ESPN less examine your concerns with revenue and exposure. There are primarily only two major sports we need to be concerned or have value nationally exposure with major revenue streams. ESPN will be televising most of the Big 12 men basketball games this year. As for basketball, the Big 12 really has not worries in getting national exposure compared to the other power leagues.

Football is more about tier 1 and tier 2 for national exposure. ESPN will be televising South Carolina and Texas A&M or the new SEC network (tier 3 sec), however, why are we not getting the top teams on this network for the SEC. Is it because ESPN and CBS are wanting the bigger games for the prime national networks. The Big 12 should be fine in this area of national exposure with tier 1 and tier 2 football games until the current contract is up in 2024-25. If the Big 12 is not as successful as in the past in winning bowl games and making and winning the national football playoff games, there may be of some concern in the new contract. I just do not see the Big 12 having an issues in this area. The Big 12 is just not about Oklahoma and or Texas. There are very good football programs in this 10 team league that can have break out years. Baylor is better than both programs at the moment in football.

Give the Big 12 a little time and we can see if you concerns are still valid in the next 5 to 10 years. I actually think the Big 12 is better positioned than many of the other power five leagues.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 10:28 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1445
Trust me, I'm not worried about the A&M/SEC hype, check out my avatar <<< I made that when I thought A&M was going to the PAC16 with us. The only thing that might worry me is A&M's hype as it's affecting UT's recruiting but even that isn't a big deal. If you win, they will come.

Let's do an exercise...name the top 6 fb schools in each conference (yes I know it's not exactly fair 10 v 14 but play along)

PAC12 - USC, UCLA, Ore, Wash, Stan, ASU
B1G - tOSU, Michigan, PSU, Neb, Wisc, MSU
SEC - Bama, LSU, UF, UGA, Aub, SC
ACC - FSU, Clem, VPI, UNC, Miami, Pitt
B12 - UT, OU, OSU, KSU, TT, WVU

Scratch the first two off the list and tell me which conference gets the benefit of the doubt in playoff selection and future TV contracts.

The B12 and ACC are close to even but the ACC obviously has more potential and they have a few more mentionables in GT, Lville, and NCSU, but they get quickly left behind if ND joins up and if they eventually steal WVU from us for 16, and even if they lose some combo of 3-4 of UNC, UVA, NCSU, VPI, GT, Duke they'll still be better than whatever is left of the Big12.

The lack of a CCG doesn't hurt us IMO but round robin play does. It's been statistically proven that playing everyone in your conference artificially lowers your records/ranking. That's going to be thing that will hurt us. That's the only reason I'm some what in favor of expanding (though I don't like the candidates) with Cincy and UConn. That would segregate the weaker Northern schools from the stronger football schools thus helping the South's SOS (which directly impacts the playoff selection committee) and the record/ranking of the North (as they only have to play UT/OU once a year).

The SEC is a good conference, right now they are really good, pre 2006 they were about average. These things have hills and valleys. A few years ago the PAC10 was a bad conference with the exception of USC, now it's clearly number 2, and it has nothing to do with them adding CU/Utah, it's just the mere fact that they added 2 schools and formed divisions.

The Big12 did the opposite, and it will hurt them. The Big12 is lucky that Oklahoma State and Baylor are both surging, and people still have recent memories of BCS winning seasons by TCU and WVU. But if Texas gets back on track with OU you'll be lucky to see 4 in the top 25.

I get your optimism about the Big12, many posters on ShaggyBevo.com agree with you too. And I agree that in the short term the Big12 will be fine (though I'm not as high on Baylor as you), the Big12 will be represented for a few years but if we keep putting out BCS level displays like Baylor/UCF, or KSU/Ore then that will change real quick for teams not named UT/OU. This won't turn overnight but by 2025, I'm pretty positive that UT/OU will be looking for a way out.

And trust me Baylor, TCU, ISU, KSU, KU, WVU which make up 3 of UT's home games aren't really driving ticket sales, add in the preseason cupcake Go5 game and your lucky to get 1 quality game out of those 4. The only consistent games that are sought after are the OSU/TT games (keep in mind OU is not included in season tickets). This will also be one of the main reasons driving UT to another conference, swap those 3 home games with 2 mediocre P12 teams (Cal, OrSU, WSU, Utah, CU, AZ) and a power school like USC, UCLA, Stan, Wash, Ore, ASU and you'll get more fan coming to games and be able to charge more for tickets than the current B12 allows. Texas would play 2 big time P12 opponents each year not including OU. I don't see how the B12 can compete with that, even if Baylor goes on a 10 year streak (which is unlikely).

The PAC16 even w/o pods is also better, AZ/ASU basically are about even with KU/KSU (slight edge to Kansas schools), Utah/TCU are about even (short term edge to TCU/long term to Utah), Colorado is better than ISU. So we're basically swapping Baylor/WVU for the old PAC8, and I'm totally good with that, BUT the PAC16 won't let Texas/USC or OU/UO go 6 years between non-CCG match ups as the TV money would obviously go up if you set those match ups 2 years on 2 years off and the PAC16 won't let their "tradition" stand in the way of $$$ assuming the 4 Cali schools and instate rivals stay intact.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2014 12:35 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 684
Location: Columbus, OH
It seems to me that the SEC is working to keep both the Big 12 and ACC under their influence and perpetually a step below them in terms of revenue and prestige.

The Sugar Bowl deal binds the Big 12 to them and helps maintain the delicate balance of placating Texas. The depth of the SEC compared to the Big 12 almost surely ensures that the SEC will be sending a better team to New Orleans. This financial relationship makes it in the best interest of the Big 12 to maintain the status quo and make sure the SEC is happy, lest they switch to sending their next-best to Atlanta to play the ACC.

The ACC, like the SEC, has their media rights tied to ESPN. ESPN probably is keen on having a conference its invested in gutted so as long as Bristol continues paying the SEC a substantially bigger pay check than their coastal cousins the SEC will be happy. Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Kentucky all certainly enjoy having a revenue advantage over their ACC rivals. The ACC will certainly not abandon ESPN for one their competitors because then their would be a great incentive for collaboration between ESPN and the SEC to gut the ACC.

The SEC has things just the way they want. As long as they have the ACC and Big 12 in their pockets they have a 3-2 advantage on decision making over the PAC12/Big10 block and they are the ones calling the shots within their 3-conference block.

Texas is the linchpin in this whole arrangement. They are the school holding the Big 12 together as an elite conference. Texas also has a relationship with ESPN through the Longhorn Network. If Texas were ever to to switch over to the Pac 16 then the whole system resets. The next time television contracts are renegotiated the Pac 12 will definitely make a strong bid for the Longhorns and I think that this time they will get them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2014 1:29 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1552
fighting muskie wrote:
The SEC has things just the way they want. As long as they have the ACC and Big 12 in their pockets they have a 3-2 advantage on decision making over the PAC12/Big10 block and they are the ones calling the shots within their 3-conference block.

While the major conferences have some differences on various issues, it's hard to see whereby the SEC/B12/ACC are going to be in consistent agreement on every significant matter presented, while the B1G/Pac12 display a united and opposite view. We know questions related to player compensations, for example, have shown some opinion differences; but if all five conferences have put themselves in the same boat, forming internal alliances beyond bowl agreements need to have a grander, functional purpose. What that may be is not particularly defined; but network contracts and revenue production have to be at the core of it.

The whole P5 system looks to be driven by greed in and of itself. I don't think either side are looking for limits in the pursuit of greed; rather, each wants to make sure their support is intact and strengthened to continue what they have been doing, and with even less inhibition.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2014 2:42 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1445
Exactly

It's about greed and control.

Texas is worth far more than the 35-40mil they pull in a year (so are others like USC, tOSU, Bama, ect) but they decided that control of and comfort in the B12 are worth giving up 20+ million a year (that's my best guess as UT/OU made 10m more than any other current Big12 mbr and that obviously would have grown had they not move to equal distribution). But come 2025 when the PAC, SEC, and B1G all have networks up and running and are pulling in more $ per school than the B12...well that's the tipping point.

Everybody is willing to sacrifice a little for the greater good, IF you value the schools who are the beneficiaries of your sacrifice. Washington/Oregon decided that WSU/OSU were worth it, the Cal school decided Cal was valueable to bring along, and all decide Utah was worth it for a CCG.

Texas for years has been in support of A&M, Tech, Rice and OU. They also found value in the other AAU schools. But for schools like OSU, KSU, TCU, Baylor and WVU they are simply tolerating. Why give up more of the pie for schools you don't really even like? A&M and Rice aren't around anymore, so take TT, OU and their tag-a-long OSU West a share your value with mostly like minded schools then instead of 2 power schools trying to support 8 non-elites, you have 8 supporting 8 non-elites. Instead of 4 tier 1 institutions (3 AAU) working with 6 non tier 1 schools for membership, you have 14 members supporting 2 non tier 1's getting them up to speed (TX Tech/OkSU) and 9 AAU members voting in favor of 5 tier 1 schools and supporting them behind the scenes.

Many fans are already wishing for more high profile games, look at who UT has been scheduling lately (UCLA, Cal, USC) the movement is heading that direction. Fans have lost traded games with A&M for TCU, Mizzou for WVU, and Nebraska/Colorado/another OOC game for more games against Kansas/ISU/KSU (yawn). Fans are greedy, schools are greedy, and conferences are greedy.

Show Texas/Oklahoma that their greed is best served in conference X and I don't see them shedding tear for those that are left behind.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2014 12:14 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2686
Location: Phoenix Arizona
tkalmus, it is not necessarily that I am overly optimistic on the Big 12, it has more to do with recent NCAA grant of autonomy and the impacts to the 65 schools that are like or not federated this 65 schools into an association.

This federation has sort of been in effect since the creation of the BCS and now is more formal in voting status. Voting is one of the primary benefits of being a member of a conference and now the P5 are for first time officially group together in a voting block. While it stops just short of complete merger of the P5 conferences, it is no less a binding of these schools into this newly created NCAA association.

The Big East Conference was always a thorn in this federation formally called the BCS that included both football and non football schools. The breakup of the Big East was just one more hurdle and maybe the final hurdle that allowed the football schools or formally the BCS schools to continue with the control of football and revenue that comes along with this. The old argument was why can basketball only schools be include in a power conference while schools in the MWC which played football were not. This may sound petty, it did pave the way for the NCAA to allow autonomy.

I do not see a Power Five conference raiding each other in the future because there are huge consequences for taking this type of action. It would reset the NCAA Autonomy. The Power five conference or possibly in a raided situation the Power 3 conferences could threaten to leave the NCAA, I do not believe this was every the intention.

With the exception of Temple, the BCS or newly created P5 have all the same schools with Louisville, Utah, and TCU lucky to have been included with all the drama of realignment that took place with especially the killing of the hybrid Big East. Voting in autonomy would have been impossible or very difficult for football schools in a hybrid Big East to have had any influence. Remember in the NCAA autonomy a conference has voting power in additional to each school.

What does all this mean, the P5 with Notre Dame as a partial member and independent in football actually have created a balance that stabilized the BCS schools or P5 conferences and ultimately lead to a vote by the NCAA on autonomy.

Sure there will be conferences that fare better that others in P5 as well as schools in a P5 conferences that fare better than one of their pier schools in the individual conference, there is plenty of football revenue to go around. Any upset to this apple cart could and would have far more negative impacts that gains in expansion of another P5 school.

This why you have BYU pounding on the door of the Big 12 and the president of U of Missouri making statements like there may never be any more changes in the current P5 leagues.

If ESPN is paying 400 million plus to televise three college football playoff games, one can only imagine what seven playoff games or 15 games would generate. Expansion of the college football playoff will not have been possible without the autonomy vote to keep control of football revenue within the original BCS schools.

College conference networks will be paying peanuts compared to a full blown college playoff.

There could be some movement with the Big Ten or SEC expanding with some Group of five schools or the Big 12 someday expanding back for 12 with some of those same Group of five schools, I just do not see much movement in the long term future for any of the power five leagues.

The NCAA autonomy vote shut the door on expansion of P5 conferences and actually stabilized these leagues and that is probably not good for the BYUs hoping to gain access to one of these P5 leagues.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2014 5:15 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1093
lash wrote:
The Big East Conference was always a thorn in this federation formally called the BCS that included both football and non football schools. The breakup of the Big East was just one more hurdle and maybe the final hurdle that allowed the football schools or formally the BCS schools to continue with the control of football and revenue that comes along with this. The old argument was why can basketball only schools be include in a power conference while schools in the MWC which played football were not. This may sound petty, it did pave the way for the NCAA to allow autonomy.


It did pave the way some, but I don't think they were a historic thorn in the side of the structure. The whole eastern and mid-south independent scene was a pain to work with in the old structure. PSU-Miami Fiesta Bowl is right up there with BYU's national championship via the Holiday Bowl as two of the biggest "issues" regarding the structure. I think, had the Big East "gotten it right" on Penn State's membership, getting Army and Navy, and still grabbing Miami and maybe forgoing the likes of Virginia Tech, Temple, and maybe even Rutgers, the Big East could have put the hurt on all of the collegiate football landscape. It would have had the right programs (PSU, Pitt, and UMFL for football), the right footprint, and the right media connections via proximity. If anyone really made the Big East "an issue," it was the ACC. Because the ACC could have had Penn State, and should have taken Miami and Syracuse much sooner (I would have told BC to shove off after being forced to take VT, and I would have passed on FSU for Miami). Where the Big East failed was Penn State. The Big East wasn't "big" without them, or the service academies.

I have to wonder what would have happened had Colorado taken the PAC deal back in the 90's, and if Nebraska and maybe two others went to the Big Ten, and A&M to the SEC. What would that have done to the structure? That was closer to happening, and the Big East was able to thrive off the structure until the ACC finally "woke up." Take the Big XII out of the 90's and 00's, and what do the other majors do?

I wonder if the next puffs of smoke for possible significant shifts come from further autonomous negotiations between certain programs and exclusive or favorable access to certain bowls, ala Navy and BYU, but more like from schools like Oklahoma and Texas.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2014 7:52 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1445
lash (and sec) - I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

I like everything you said, but your leaving out the fact that many schools and conferences are not satisfied with the current lineup. The B1G wants 16, the ACC wants 16 w/ ND, and from all appearances the SEC also wants 16 (despite what Mizzou said, which I think was more to shut up the low rumbling of Mizzou/B1G talk).

The PAC12 is still with 12 and has little to no exposure to the early time slot. Other than adding Go5 schools their is no way they can get that spot w/o raiding the Big12.

You're also not paying attention to individual school's revenue, specifically Texas and Oklahoma.

If Texas's TV is ever less than anyone else, they will not be happy. Oklahoma is already not happy which is why the PAC16 talks started up again during the SEC raids, as they are the only school making LESS money in the entire Big 12 conference.

I don't think UT/OU will challenge the GOR, so we're stable for now...but I do think that time is still on the horizon.

The P5 is going to settle things down some but unlike you, I don't see much, if anymore expansion outside of Cincy, UConn, or BYU. If anything I see contraction. The P5 becomes the P4. The Texhoma 4 move West, the Big 10 and SEC both also move to 16 (KU+ACC schools), and the ACC sweeps up what is left (UConn, Cincy, WVU).

Baylor, TCU, K State, Iowa St, and some AAC/MWC schools won't maintain their P5 status after that. The bowls will refuse to make a new agreement with them and the new playoff negotiations will lump them in with the rest of the Go5. The Big12's formal voting status will be taken away just as easy as it was given. The P4 will just threaten to take their bball teams and start their own tournament again and the other 28 other conferences will do whatever they want.

Currently, UConn, Cincy, USF, and Temple are out. In 10 years and after some shuffling its quite possible that UConn, Cincy and even Temple make it in while BU/TCU/KSU/ISU are out, other than that not a lot changes. The power that was 5 conferences and 65 teams, becomes 4 conference and 64 teams with better markets and they swap some middle of the road farming/religious schools for some major metropolitian ones. Every conference has access to the 3 major US broadcasting times and everyone is in a respectable conference (assuming the ACC doesn't lose an arm and a leg in the raids). The winners in this scenario (UT, OU, TT, OSU, PAC12, KU, B1G+2, SEC+2, WVU, UConn, Cincy, Temple, ACCbb<everyone bball really except maybe the SEC>, P4 voting power, cfb TV markets, conference networks, and fans) far outweigh the losers (BU, TCU, KSU, ISU & ACCfb<depending who they lose, if its just Sryacuse, NCSU, & VPI then you could argue that they come out ahead>).

And despite the average fans yearn for an 8 team playoff (which I also want), I thinik we'll see them stay at 4 for the forseeable future as consolidating from 5 to 4 conferences gives them an easy excuse to give an automatic bid to each conference and tell the public that it is by defacto an 8 team playoff when you count the CCGs. I hope I'm wrong but I have a feeling that it will end up that way.

Still, many of you don't see/hear what Texas/Oklahoma fans are saying/feeling. And if I've learned anything from all of this is that you don't underestimate a fanbase that is unsatisfied. Season ticket sales are going down, the only way to keep this money train going is to win and play quality games. In the short term we're scheduling good OOC games and hopefully we'll be back to winning again soon but that only part of the equation. Iowa St, Kansas State, TCU, and in most years Baylor don't drive TV ratings and don't sell tickets. That's what this all boils down too, and unless ESPN comes in and basically offers UT another 300+million for the LHN and OU manages to make a bigger deal to keep them satisfied, the status quo will not stand.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2014 8:24 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 684
Location: Columbus, OH
I'm with tkalmus. The big 12 is still unstable and will remain that way. They will always be the weak member in the Power 5. Texas and Oklahoma have to be able to be at the same revenue level as the the other college blue bloods. The LHN will float the longhorns but what about the sooners? Oklahoma would be wise to force the PAC 16 issue by making overtures to the SEC. This would kill the Big 12 tv deal might cause Texas to consider going west with Oklahoma and along with Tech and State--that would be far more favorable than going to the SEC without their rivals.

I hardly think that the power 5 will stay at 5 forever.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 21, 2014 9:53 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2686
Location: Phoenix Arizona
fighting muskie wrote:
I'm with tkalmus. The big 12 is still unstable and will remain that way. They will always be the weak member in the Power 5. Texas and Oklahoma have to be able to be at the same revenue level as the the other college blue bloods. The LHN will float the longhorns but what about the sooners? Oklahoma would be wise to force the PAC 16 issue by making overtures to the SEC. This would kill the Big 12 tv deal might cause Texas to consider going west with Oklahoma and along with Tech and State--that would be far more favorable than going to the SEC without their rivals.
I hardly think that the power 5 will stay at 5 forever.

fighting muskie,
As a Big Ten and Nebraska fan, should you not be more worried about the lack of football success by the Big Ten compared to the future health of the Big 12.

Most medial groups have the Big Ten ranked consistently at the bottom of the Power 5 leagues. Obviously Nebraska has not done much to help with the image of Big Ten football since joining which leads me to compare recent expansion candidates based on football performance during the BCS era.

According to most of these same media outlets, both WVU and TCU ranked near the bottom of the Big 12. If we examine further statics, TCU and WVU have more BCS wins combined compared to recent SEC expansion of Texas A&M, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas. You can add Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland to list and TCU and WVU have more BCS wins that all those combined.

It leads me to believe Nebraska had much to do with the wows of the all Big 12 with North and South divisions. Nebraska simply did not hold up its end or division and moving to the weaker Big Ten football is just more proof.

I have much more faith in the stability of Big 12 football compared to the weaker Big Ten unless the Big Ten turns things around in football.

College football playoff is going to expose more frauds in football strength and maybe that is why both Nebraska and the Big Ten pushed so hard for a plus one system.

Maybe your reflections of the Big 12 has a lot to do with the concerns of Nebraska's move to the much perceived weaker Big Ten conference which has not helped Nebraska get over that football slump that begin in the Big 12 and continues in the Big Ten.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3162 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211  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