NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Sat Nov 01, 2014 3:27 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1064 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 ... 71  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:58 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1719
It'll be interesting.

a) Recall tht Saban's brief foray in to the NFL (Miami Dolphins) in between stints at LSU and Alabama was less than stellar.
b) Saban is pretty well-paid at Alabama. Does he really need more money ? At this point does waving dollar bills at him grab his attention ?
maybe it does - I don't know....
c) Texas does have a built-in advantage of being a very fertile recruiting ground, and Saban has plenty of cache to attract top recruits.
d) If Saban were to accept a huge contract and go to Texas, the pressure on him to win the National Championship is (as Al Michels would say) UUUUUGE !!!!
NOTHING LESS than a National Championship EVERY YEAR is acceptable. That is not realistic, but yet, that is what many will come to expect.
A one-loss team could be viewed as a catastrophe - does he need to walk into a sitution like that ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:00 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1572
tkalmus wrote:
sec03 wrote:
Vegas/Line makers said that had 'Bama was to be matched with FSU or Auburn again, 'Bama would be favored vs. both.

Vegas line on Saban to Texas is 4 to 1.


Saban goes where the millions can be multiplied. Maybe Texas is offering four times the amount.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 11, 2013 2:20 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1130
Talk about a lose-lose situation. If you're Alabama, and Saban is only chasing a bigger payout from the school, how long can you keep a guy who is totally willing to force you to multiply his salary EVERY YEAR despite him putting his name to a contract? And, if you're Texas, and if Saban has another one of these downturns where he doesn't deliver, was it worth forcing a guy out who actually did extremely good things for your program?

SEC football can survive without this guy. Let him go if he wants and let Texas deal with his antics.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 11, 2013 2:52 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1464
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
And, if you're Texas, and if Saban has another one of these downturns where he doesn't deliver, was it worth forcing a guy out who actually did extremely good things for your program?

Dude, Saban or no Saban, as long as Mack is gone I'm good, but outside of the Dolphins I don't know when Saban had a downturn....

Mack Brown has 2, yeah only 2 (not a typo) Big 12 championships and 1 national title (but gets credit for 2 from most) in 16 years of coaching.

He's only trying to hang on for 1 more year (maybe 2) for 9 wins in order to surpass Coach Royal in total wins and be the all time winningest head coach at Texas. (FYI Royal has 11 SWC conference titles, and 3 national championships.)

My grandfather played for Coach Ed Price back in the 50's at UT, the only coach to leave UT w/ a losing record who only lasted 5 season, HOWEVER even he got 2 conference titles. So does Mackovic (coach prior to Mack Brown) and he was only around for 5 seasons.

Mack was a good coach, one of the greatest, but now its over, despite whats being said he can't do it anymore. Mack said we'd be back in the mix for a national title this year and we aren't even ranked. He then moved the goal post to conference title and couldn't lock that down either.

This year Texas had 4 quality wins (OU, TCU, KU, Tech) 4 ugly/embarassing wins (NMSU who was WINNING the game until end of the 2nd quarter, KSU, ISU, WVU) and 4 ugly blowout losses (BYU, Ole Miss, OkSU, Baylor) and it'll only get worse next year as Texas losses top talent at virtually every position.

I really despise the national story line that Texas fans are unfair to Mack, we rode with him from 98-05 w/o a conference championship, then again with the rebuilding in 06-07, and a vast majority of the fans base said to give him a chance after his first losing season in 2010 (where he fired 1/2 the coaching staff) and even 2011 but 2012 people started getting frustrated (3 blowout losses to OU will do that in addition to losing to Baylor last 3 out of 4) and it has just now all come to a head. This wasn't a hero/villian in 1 year like what happenend at Auburn w/ Chizik, this was a gradual acceptance that things need to change.

Today's Seniors at Texas have had 3 OCs and 3 DC in just 4 years and nothing is changing. At some point and time you have to accept that the problem may not be w/ the coordinators. Holding people accountable (especially to their own promises) should not be critisized as unfair.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 2:37 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1130
Well, the deed is done and Mackers is gone. It's sad to see a guy get run out like that. Then again, the way things have been circulating, is Powers even safe at this point?

These kind of potential regime changes always bring with them the speculation of chaos, realignment included. No different with Texas now. To some extent, I wonder if Powers does stay on (and really, how credible is his job security situation?), with Dodds and Brown gone...does he work to fully wipe the slate clean and do what must be done to either "fix" the Big XII or go elsewhere?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 8:42 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1464
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
Well, the deed is done and Mackers is gone. It's sad to see a guy get run out like that. Then again, the way things have been circulating, is Powers even safe at this point?

These kind of potential regime changes always bring with them the speculation of chaos, realignment included. No different with Texas now. To some extent, I wonder if Powers does stay on (and really, how credible is his job security situation?), with Dodds and Brown gone...does he work to fully wipe the slate clean and do what must be done to either "fix" the Big XII or go elsewhere?

Powers is a lame duck but he'll hang on until gov Perry is no longer the gov, after that he'll retire and run the AAU which he was just appointed to the head of.

Realignment with Texas could be the last thing he does in his lame duck year but most likely nothing will happen until the next guy takes over.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 11:46 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1719
Realignment ????

Wouldn't that little old GOR thing be a bit of an obstacle ?

Why are we discussing Texas in an SEC thread, BTW ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 12:22 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1130
tute79 wrote:
Realignment ????

Wouldn't that little old GOR thing be a bit of an obstacle ?

Why are we discussing Texas in an SEC thread, BTW ?


Spin-off tangent from the Saban rumors, I guess?

Even beyond that, I think an "adrift" Texas is a good thing for the SEC and recruiting in the state. Does a regime change put the Longhorns back on course? Does a regime change cause the school to question what it can do to alter the control of the conference...much of which was done with people who will not have their current jobs in 2014?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 1:28 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1572
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
tute79 wrote:
Realignment ????

Wouldn't that little old GOR thing be a bit of an obstacle ?

Why are we discussing Texas in an SEC thread, BTW ?


Spin-off tangent from the Saban rumors, I guess?

Even beyond that, I think an "adrift" Texas is a good thing for the SEC and recruiting in the state. Does a regime change put the Longhorns back on course? Does a regime change cause the school to question what it can do to alter the control of the conference...much of which was done with people who will not have their current jobs in 2014?

Yeah, it is a side-tracked discussion. Maybe the next responder will transition it to a B12 thread or something to do with coaching changes. However, I will tie such to an SEC example of the past. Recall in 2003 when then Auburn President Walker, AD Housel, and major booster Lowder took a previously undisclosed visit to see then Louisville coach, Bobby Petrino about the head fb coaching job at Auburn while Turbeville was actively coaching and had not resigned?
At least in the Texas situation, the discussion was with Saban's agent, which on surface, looks more ethical. Texas had board members in the chase, which points to questions about protocol and the hierarchy of responsibilities in governance.

If a school seeks to talk to a coach of another school under contract, the traditional, and perhaps ethical practice to pursue, is to ask the coach's current employer for permission to speak to him/her about a declared vacancy. It's way more sordid when representatives of a school, direct officials or boosters, converse with an active coach elsewhere and no resignation or firing has occurred at the time.

Some coaches can be blamed also. Many encourage and exploit interest from elsewhere to land new, more lucrative contract extensions from their existing employer.
Saban has benefited from such.

Where boosters have been most disgusting, and it involves a wide-range of power-schools, has been with recruitment and retaining desired athletes. Only a fraction have been caught or exposed. And they are not so rogue as potentially nabbed schools try to suggest in their responses to NCAA inquiries. Somebody from the athletic staff is giving someone else target names. Thus, the cake jobs, new homes, cars, contributions, etc., for recruits and their families.

As to Texas itself, I expect they are comparatively, generally clean when it come to recruits because their supply access is very strong, and Texas has too high of a profile to take certain risks. But certainly, they have the financial power to go after goals and objectives that can be bought. What their problem has indicated though, some operations have not looked controlled, speaking from an unified and most appropriate voice. Everywhere, on or near this level, is immersed with politics; but in Texas, maybe it is just a bit bigger or more intense. Mistakes can be made when the wielding of formidable power under one's control is attempted to be imposed on forces well beyond one control, and full acceptance gets rejected and undesired consequences result.


Last edited by sec03 on Thu Dec 19, 2013 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 1:43 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1464
sec03 wrote:
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
tute79 wrote:
Realignment ????

Wouldn't that little old GOR thing be a bit of an obstacle ?

Why are we discussing Texas in an SEC thread, BTW ?


Spin-off tangent from the Saban rumors, I guess?

Even beyond that, I think an "adrift" Texas is a good thing for the SEC and recruiting in the state. Does a regime change put the Longhorns back on course? Does a regime change cause the school to question what it can do to alter the control of the conference...much of which was done with people who will not have their current jobs in 2014?

Yeah, it is a side-tracked discussion. Maybe the next responder will transition it to a B12 thread or something to do with coaching changes. However, I will tie such to an SEC example of the past. Recall in 2003 when then Auburn President Walker, AD Housel, and major booster Lowder took a previously undisclosed visit to see then Louisville coach, Bobby Petrino about the head fb coaching job at Auburn while Turbeville was actively coaching and had not resigned?
At least in the Texas situation, the discussion was with Saban's agent, which on surface, looks more ethical. Texas had board members in the chase, which points to questions about protocol and the hierarchy of responsibilities in governance.

If a school seeks to talk to a coach of another school under contract, the traditional, and perhaps ethical practice to pursue, is to ask the coach's current employer for permission to speak to him/her about a declared vacancy. It's way more sordid when representatives of a school, direct officials or boosters, converse with an active coach elsewhere and no resignation or firing has occurred at the time.

Some coaches can be blamed also. Many encourage and exploit interest from elsewhere to land new, more lucrative contract extensions from their existing employer.
Saban has benefited from such.

Where boosters have been most disgusting, and it involves a wide-range of power-schools, has been with recruitment and retaining desired athletes. Only a fraction have been caught or exposed. And they are not so rogue as potentially nabbed schools try to suggest in their responses to NCAA inquiries. Somebody from the athletic staff is giving someone else target names. Thus, the cake jobs, new homes, cars, contributions, etc., for recruits and their families.

As to Texas itself, I expect they are comparatively, generally clean when it come to recruits because their supply access is very strong, and Texas has too high of a profile to take certain risks. But certainly, they have the financial power to go after goals and objectives that can be bought. What their problem has indicated though, some operations have not looked controlled, speaking from an unified and most appropriate voice. Everywhere, on or near this level, is immersed with politics; but in Texas, maybe it is just a bit bigger or more intense.

Which is why the major power player at UT do not desire to join the SEC....PAC12 or (heaven forbid) B1G are options 1 & 2.

SEC is a distant 3.

And now the thread is back on track...sort of.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 1:59 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1572
tkalmus wrote:
Which is why the major power player at UT do not desire to join the SEC....PAC12 or (heaven forbid) B1G are options 1 & 2.

SEC is a distant 3.

And now the thread is back on track...sort of.


Like the old Southwest Conference days? I don't believe that's their overriding issue.

SEC is not even an option and I doubt there is a one, two, three list. From what is known, and the changing of the guard certainly can take a new direction, but the PAC12 thing got on a back burner with the heat turned off. I believe the B12 stays, and Texas remains a part of it for at least another decade.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 3:05 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1130
Television/media deals will keep realignment a fluid thing, even at the top, despite what the ADs say (who are mostly afterthoughts in these decisions, anyway). The look-in's for the B1G and SEC will force some thought from the PAC-12, who will probably push, HARD, for the Texas-Oklahoma duo again, to heck with the consequences of the GoR and bylaws. If the Big XII resists expansion (I don't think they do), I expect the PAC, or Larry Scott without the fickleness of USC and Stanford, to get it done and even up with the top two conferences.

It's because the SEC is expected to make this monster payout (and I think, were they to ever get their network together, put baseball more out there, and some focus back onto basketball, that it would wallop the earnings potential of the B1G) that it keeps the speculation flowing.

I also trust that when the B1G says 16 is more optimal than 14, that the SEC also really feels this way. The door's open for qualified candidates in the B1G. I suspect it is in the SEC, too. It's just a question of who and when.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 20, 2013 11:52 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1572
My comments are not anti-B12 or intending to be detracting to Texas. While neither are my base of passion, I appreciate both. Basically, I favor a successful B12 and see it's value for a region that deserves a strong conference, and not forced into being further pieces to puzzles for the west coast, the eastern midwest/northeast, or the southeast. If the schools of the B12 all want to separate to those destinations as a few had chose to do previously from the B12, fine; but something will be truly lost in new, re-structured mega-designs for elsewhere.

First, we can all speculate, but I shall start with the premise the B12 remains a decent conference. They took a huge blow a couple of years back losing teams from four directions, and their two additions were respectable, but less than stellar. Still, the B12 is composed of largely high quality athletic programs by general comparisons. For their basic region, there is logic in having a Power 5 conference based there.
Second, I do agree the B12 looks vulnerable and the GoR does not eradicate that impression completely. But the G0R is a formidable and expensive factor to deal with if there is a motive to bust it. The B12 does not help their case by being so dismissive about further expansion. Not having a CCG would not look like such a sore thumb if the conference did not have a history with having one. Yes, it is interesting the B1G has a more open stance about expanding while the B12, with less numbers, is so status quo about it all. Bowlsby speaks to the right of Atila the Hun when it comes to conference expansion.
Third, and this has been mentioned before, the B1G and the SEC are not going to engulf themselves in a G0R busting endeavor for the purpose to help the PAC12 take Texas, Oklahoma, and who may go along with them. Heck, the SEC would not cooperate with the B1G in their effort to have a southward bust of the ACC prior to the ACC's G0R. And what's in it for the SEC to further break-up the B12---take Kansas State and Iowa State or Baylor? Not happening.
Fourth, the SEC is not in expansion mode. Getting internal agreement to expand is not a given. If somebody such as North Carolina-Chapel Hill or Oklahoma (alone) suddenly were free to come onboard, the SEC shall act in their interests. But right now, even the mighty SEC is basically stuck about expansion given the GoR arrangements in the B12 and the ACC. The B1G actually has better options than the SEC, geographically, if expansion is a must now. Example: UConn would not be a preferred choice, but not a terrible one either.
Fifth, 14 is a bit of a difficult number to work with in conference size, but it is workable. The SEC had some struggles with the scheduling of it for multiple sports, but compromise solved most issues.
Sixth, the PAC12 has said little recently about expanding. However, if or when the PAC12 does expand, I doubt they shall do so in a manner that over-shaddows their base of a 'west-coast' look.

All this centers around on what Texas shall do. As known, a few years back Texas, in a brief period, was all over the place with proposed deals, overtures, speculations involving the PAC12, B1G, and the ACC, with the LHN in tow. Then they opted to hang in the depleted, but re-affirmed, B12. I've got to give them credit, they lay out their terms in an uncompromising way, and say "accept it" or no deal. Texas knows they have good options even if they have offended and cost them allegiances from within. From within the B12, "can't live with them, can't live without them" was a scenario that got played.

Realizing there are those that disagree, I believe Texas is where they want to be right now. Money does not appear to be an issue for them right now. They still garner more overall than anyone else. The one big risk is that the B12 loses statue, particularly in the State of Texas. Canceling the Texas-Texas A&M rivalry could hurt Texas more than it does A&M in the long-term, if A&M's recent success is sustained.

IMO, the B12 should go for BYU and another and broaden their market. Right now, they do look in limbo in terms of growth.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 20, 2013 12:46 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 10:30 am
Posts: 1372
Location: Baltimore, MD
I agree completely, SEC. The CFB world is better served by having at least 5 power conferences, each of which represents a defined section of the country. Let the Big12 get BYU and Cincinnati.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 4:39 am 
Offline
Sophomore
Sophomore

Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:01 pm
Posts: 62
SEC03, I agree with some of the things you said. But for the life of me I don't get BYU. I know everybody seems to think they would be a perfect fit. I just don't get it. What do they offer? They are solid in football and solid in hoops. I get that part. But don't they recruit a lot of kids from the state of Texas? More mouths to feed. The big 12 needs to expand their recruiting footprint. Look at the SEC, they have Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina, and to some degree Texas to recruit from. The Big 12 has Texas and Oklahoma in their footprint. That simply is not enough to keep up with the SEC's and Big 10's of the world. So grab Cincy and a Florida school (obviously Florida State or Miami would have been great, but with their GOR, they aren't going anywhere for a long time). UCF would probably be the better option of them and USF. I say that as a UCF fan. But as a college football fan, UCF has an on campus stadium and a little bit of physical space to grow where as USF is in the projects of Tampa and has virtually no room for on campus growth. Plus our president is a lot easier to work with than USF's president, Judy Genshaft. She is a real piece of work.

All that being said, I think going to 14 would be the best move with adding 3 schools in the east and 1 team named BYU in the west. If someday down the road the Texhoma 4 decided to leave for greener pastures out west, you would still have a league. Given time and money, I believe both UCF and USF could join the Big 3 in Florida and make it the Big 5. I know there is a sentiment in the Big 12 that they don't want to add teams that don't bring in their fair share of revenue. Adding the two Florida schools would bring in the I-4 corridor, which would bring in the #13 and #19 TV markets. I am sure that would add something to the TV contracts. Plus, if push came to shove, I would bet that both Florida schools would take a smaller slice of the pie in the beginning just to get out of their current conference deal. Start them out at 30% share and let that increase by 7-10% each year until they reach full share. It would be more money than they are making now and an investment in the future to the Big 12. With that, I will no longer comment on the Big 12 on an SEC thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1064 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 ... 71  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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