NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards

Discussions by Conference:
 
NCAA Map
  It is currently Sat Aug 29, 2015 4:01 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1120 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 71, 72, 73, 74, 75
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 4:31 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1678
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
I don't know if I'll ever understand why the PAC didn't put some faith in the process that had they taken OU and OSU when those two approached them, the likelihood of it bringing Texas back to the table was very good. Was the PAC really that stupid to believe something close to what the Irish have with the ACC would have floated in Austin, or Texas becoming an independent, or remaining one, in the impending post-BCS future? There was a history between the two sides. The PAC left it open for Texas to come aboard back in the 90's, and that network caused too many differences the last time...they weren't worlds apart.

Any future where R3 is a non-conference game for Oklahoma must assume State follows them wherever they go. The logistics for the alternative just aren't there. There aren't enough OOC slots to demand two yearly games, especially of those degrees which would annually make Oklahoma's schedule the toughest in all of FBS. Not very viable, and unlikely to help getting the Sooners to any playoff. Until we hit thirteen regular season games, nine (or more) conference games with suggested OOCs with various G5 conferences make both R3 and Bedlam in the non-conference virtually impossible to ensure. And State isn't coming off that schedule if severed.

Several of these conferences missed good opportunities to add formidable schools when windows were open. Potential good decisions can give way to pettiness, protectionism, and politics. Some of these deciders, inclusive of a number of University Presidents, know much less about the landscape of other conferences than several of the individuals that post here, for example. Even a number of ADs' are internally focused and have a narrow view of the possibilities.

That's a very good point about OU scheduling concerns if they somehow got disconnected by conference association with UT and oSu. Something similar could be said about UT if they went somewhere else, basically alone. Even now, they are singing they can't re-schedule Texas A&M anytime soon. That one is going to take more cooler settling and pressure to revive.

We see a lot of suggestions about the SEC adding this one and that one. The conference went through a considerable ordeal over scheduling following the additions of Texas A&M and Mizzou. Alabama, in particular, and Auburn resisted any idea of changing divisions or splitting divisions. Alabama was the last to agree in adding Mizzou. They wanted certain assurances, particularly with scheduling. Florida and South Carolina were not unassertive in counterpointing Alabama. LSU made a fuss about the permanent cross division games with the Gators, implying they have it tougher in scheduling. A couple of the geographic extremes of the conference, Texas A&M and So. Carolina, were booked as permanent cross-division rivals. Some of the SEC schools, such as Alabama, wanted 9 conference games, while those SEC schools with in-state ACC rivalries, opposed the idea. Mizzou, looking a bit odd in the SEC-east, actually found it a good spot to excel. In recruiting reports in the southeast region of the conference, potential signers often mention Mizzou as a consideration; where before, such was rare.

If or when the SEC does go to 16, they'll have to be delicate and diplomatic in whom they add and how divisions are impacted. In the unexpected event OU and oSu were ever added to the SEC, would Auburn move to SEC-east? Uh, maybe, welcome to the SEC-east, Mississippi State, giving up neighbor 'Bama, Auburn, and LSU! State would get Ole Miss, but OU and oSu getting Vandy and Kentucky? That would be a hard sell in another uproar about changing cross-division rivals. I can't figure that hypothetical scenario out to the liking of all involved.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:56 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:04 pm
Posts: 470
The SEC would have a scheduling and divisional mess if they went to 16. They could do the numbers OK, but identifying and protecting given cross division rivalries would be difficult and would require some member schools to make big compromises. At 16, the SEC would almost have to go to 9 conference games to have any kind of rotation with the other division or would have to decide to eliminate permanent cross-overs altogether. Such would also reduce the opportunities for some members to schedule P5 games OOC each year, and seeing more quality OOC games could diminish. Some members would have 10 P5 games anyway, but not with any new OOC P5 opponent. Expansion does narrow flexibility further.
That central core of Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, and Georgia would be the schools most impacted with changes to cross-division rivalries, and that's even if they don't have to change divisions. If, for example, OU/OSU were added to the west, somebody has to go east with more complications.
Really, from a scheduling and marketing strategy standpoint, the SEC would do best to add one to the west and one to the east, and not move the exisiting. I'll say it, Texas. All can get over themselves. It's time expansion made more sense. The other, add NCSU to the east. No need to have 4 NC schools in the ACC. That would give the ACC a new market option, be it ND full-time (if ever happens), UConn, WVU, or Cincinnati. 16 could be reached from a combination within that group or find another not so obvious.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2015 9:41 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7667
Couple of SBJ articles regarding outgoing SEC Commish Mike Slive at http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jour ... /Lead.aspx and at http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jour ... iator.aspx


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 02, 2015 5:26 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:01 pm
Posts: 95
louisvillecard01 wrote:
The SEC would have a scheduling and divisional mess if they went to 16. They could do the numbers OK, but identifying and protecting given cross division rivalries would be difficult and would require some member schools to make big compromises. At 16, the SEC would almost have to go to 9 conference games to have any kind of rotation with the other division or would have to decide to eliminate permanent cross-overs altogether. Such would also reduce the opportunities for some members to schedule P5 games OOC each year, and seeing more quality OOC games could diminish. Some members would have 10 P5 games anyway, but not with any new OOC P5 opponent. Expansion does narrow flexibility further.
That central core of Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, and Georgia would be the schools most impacted with changes to cross-division rivalries, and that's even if they don't have to change divisions. If, for example, OU/OSU were added to the west, somebody has to go east with more complications.
Really, from a scheduling and marketing strategy standpoint, the SEC would do best to add one to the west and one to the east, and not move the exisiting. I'll say it, Texas. All can get over themselves. It's time expansion made more sense. The other, add NCSU to the east. No need to have 4 NC schools in the ACC. That would give the ACC a new market option, be it ND full-time (if ever happens), UConn, WVU, or Cincinnati. 16 could be reached from a combination within that group or find another not so obvious.


I believe the SEC will end up having a 9 game schedule whether they expand or not. The Pac and The Big 12 already play 9. The Big 10 is going to 9. That leaves the SEC and ACC as the only major conferences that don't play 9. Should they expand to 16 and split into 4 pods, which I believe is what will happen in the next round of expansion, you will see some sort of scheduling similar to the NFL. Play each team in your division or pod, 3 games, play all 4 teams in another pod, 4 games, then a permanent cross over rival from each of the other two pods. If a semifinal and a final are not allowed, then you take the two highest ranked teams from the 4 pods to determine a conference champion.

North- Mizzou, Tennessee, Vandy, Kentucky
East- Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, NC State
South- Auburn, Alabama, Ole Miss, Miss State
West- OU, AM, LSU, Arkansas


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2015 10:25 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:04 pm
Posts: 470
hendu1976fl wrote:
louisvillecard01 wrote:
The SEC would have a scheduling and divisional mess if they went to 16. They could do the numbers OK, but identifying and protecting given cross division rivalries would be difficult and would require some member schools to make big compromises. At 16, the SEC would almost have to go to 9 conference games to have any kind of rotation with the other division or would have to decide to eliminate permanent cross-overs altogether. Such would also reduce the opportunities for some members to schedule P5 games OOC each year, and seeing more quality OOC games could diminish. Some members would have 10 P5 games anyway, but not with any new OOC P5 opponent. Expansion does narrow flexibility further.
That central core of Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, and Georgia would be the schools most impacted with changes to cross-division rivalries, and that's even if they don't have to change divisions. If, for example, OU/OSU were added to the west, somebody has to go east with more complications.
Really, from a scheduling and marketing strategy standpoint, the SEC would do best to add one to the west and one to the east, and not move the exisiting. I'll say it, Texas. All can get over themselves. It's time expansion made more sense. The other, add NCSU to the east. No need to have 4 NC schools in the ACC. That would give the ACC a new market option, be it ND full-time (if ever happens), UConn, WVU, or Cincinnati. 16 could be reached from a combination within that group or find another not so obvious.


I believe the SEC will end up having a 9 game schedule whether they expand or not. The Pac and The Big 12 already play 9. The Big 10 is going to 9. That leaves the SEC and ACC as the only major conferences that don't play 9. Should they expand to 16 and split into 4 pods, which I believe is what will happen in the next round of expansion, you will see some sort of scheduling similar to the NFL. Play each team in your division or pod, 3 games, play all 4 teams in another pod, 4 games, then a permanent cross over rival from each of the other two pods. If a semifinal and a final are not allowed, then you take the two highest ranked teams from the 4 pods to determine a conference champion.

North- Mizzou, Tennessee, Vandy, Kentucky
East- Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, NC State
South- Auburn, Alabama, Ole Miss, Miss State
West- OU, AM, LSU, Arkansas

Hendu, you make a good point. That suggested pod model doesn't look bad. I expect with adding two teams, the SEC would seriously consider a pod arrangement instead of adding one to each division or adding two to one division and shifting a current school over to the other division. Since sixteen is generally considered the maximum target if there's further expansion, the SEC would be very strategic in picking what could be the very last two; or deciding on the premise that it would likely be for a very long time at least. They know they can hold back for the right ones and at the right time. That 9-conference games can be a touchy subject due to certain in-state rivalries that are OOC. Also, the SEC has some fussy schools about whom they play regularly, and that discussion, if it is to be fruitful, would require much give and take with pod considerations as well.
In the ACC, that Notre Dame scheduling rotation does complicate matters further.
There are indications OU spoke to the SEC recently. The SEC is not going to get itself tangled with potential lawsuits and GoR fallout. OU would have to be virtually clear of litigation issues before the SEC would deliver a formal invitation.
With recent ESPN financial questions and constraints developing, ESPN may not be in a generous mood concerning the development of the ACCN. And the B12, would find it difficult getting a conference network while the LHN remains outside that avenue, plus the question of how and where the conference would complement its current market.
Somewhere, somehow, there will be some focused implosion within the P5 that will create a limited catalyst for a few transitions with the P5. It may take a few more years.


Last edited by louisvillecard01 on Mon Aug 03, 2015 2:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2015 12:17 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 1021
Location: Columbus, OH
At this point I think pulling one school out of the Big 12 and the ACC would be a tough feat between instate politics and the GOR. I think we are more likely to see one league or the other implode with multiple teams leaving to several conferences all at once. Not a bad Pod System though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2015 2:50 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:04 pm
Posts: 470
fighting muskie wrote:
I think we are more likely to see one league or the other implode with multiple teams leaving to several conferences all at once.

It will certainly start with one of the conferences, either the B12 or the ACC. I believe in this regard, by comparison, the B12 would be the more apt to have an exodus of multiple schools. I say this because the B12 has the fewer schools. It's a conference that was bridged together; but something similar could be said about the ACC who added seven schools that were formerly associated with the old BE. That's near half the current ACC. Most ACC schools really want to be in the ACC; those that could become on the fence about it are those seeking the higher cash generated off fb. Future TV contracts shall show where the real discontent lies.

One factor the B12 appears to agree on publicly, is that there are not real strong prospects to add if they do formally decide to expand. That creates a certain dilemma that renders an unsettling appearance. It's one thing for a 14 member conference looking at this situation vs a conference set at 10 with comparatively more unique characteristics.

The ACC can fundamentally replace a couple of schools leaving without losing much beyond some image aspects. On the other hand, the B12 could lose one or two that are not replaceable in quality, and could lead to the demise of the conference as we know it. Those GoRs' are holding both conference intact for now.

The problem with the B12 being raided by three or four of the other P5 conferences, is that it would largely be the same schools the other conferences would seek. Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas would be the prime ones sought. Most others would be tag along, somewhat dependent on which P5 conference was involved. Those "pairs" in the B12 do inject an added political dimension. The ACC could change their minds about WVU though.

Who stikes first? My bet would be on the B1G. Kansas has been the quiet one. Like Rutgers and Nebraska did previously in the overall expansion drama, KU is maintaining noticeable silence about B12 key issues, and almost looks like a prim lady in waiting. Maybe they've been told something and to hold tight.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2015 5:37 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 1021
Location: Columbus, OH
louisvillecard01 wrote:
fighting muskie wrote:
I think we are more likely to see one league or the other implode with multiple teams leaving to several conferences all at once.

It will certainly start with one of the conferences, either the B12 or the ACC. I believe in this regard, by comparison, the B12 would be the more apt to have an exodus of multiple schools. I say this because the B12 has the fewer schools. It's a conference that was bridged together; but something similar could be said about the ACC who added seven schools that were formerly associated with the old BE. That's near half the current ACC. Most ACC schools really want to be in the ACC; those that could become on the fence about it are those seeking the higher cash generated off fb. Future TV contracts shall show where the real discontent lies.

One factor the B12 appears to agree on publicly, is that there are not real strong prospects to add if they do formally decide to expand. That creates a certain dilemma that renders an unsettling appearance. It's one thing for a 14 member conference looking at this situation vs a conference set at 10 with comparatively more unique characteristics.

The ACC can fundamentally replace a couple of schools leaving without losing much beyond some image aspects. On the other hand, the B12 could lose one or two that are not replaceable in quality, and could lead to the demise of the conference as we know it. Those GoRs' are holding both conference intact for now.

The problem with the B12 being raided by three or four of the other P5 conferences, is that it would largely be the same schools the other conferences would seek. Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas would be the prime ones sought. Most others would be tag along, somewhat dependent on which P5 conference was involved. Those "pairs" in the B12 do inject an added political dimension. The ACC could change their minds about WVU though.

Who stikes first? My bet would be on the B1G. Kansas has been the quiet one. Like Rutgers and Nebraska did previously in the overall expansion drama, KU is maintaining noticeable silence about B12 key issues, and almost looks like a prim lady in waiting. Maybe they've been told something and to hold tight.


I'm torn on which conference will be the one to implode. Both of the leagues struggle with having very few truly elite football brands. Neither conference has expansion candidates out that there that will add substantial revenue and television revenue is what keeps conferences viable.

The ACC's most valuable programs are also the ones who want more revenue. If the league loses those top dollar earning programs then yes they will still have a conference but it won't exactly be elite or have any television value.

Like you said, the Big 12 has the added difficulty of being smaller and thus easier to dismantle with just a few moves. I think if the Big 12 wants to stay together and live then the way to do it is be the one who kills the ACC.

Kansas could be a very interesting lynchpin in all of this if there is indeed mutual interest between them and the Big Ten. If they (and possibly another Big 12 school) goes to the Big Ten then I have no doubt in my mind that the Big 12 collapses. Texas and Oklahoma will be forced to choose somewhere to go and the programs that are attached to them will be moving also.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2015 10:33 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1678
Here's the initial SEC figures, with related articles, on paying college athletes in the SEC.

http://www.thestate.com/sports/college/ ... 93108.html

Here's some of the The Chronicle of Higher Education's data on this subject matter.

http://chronicle.com/article/At-Least-1 ... ms/229229/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2015 10:06 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 6:12 pm
Posts: 83
How the SEC could land North Carolina AND Virginia...

SEC 20
A- Texas (gets second offer), Texas A&M, Missouri, Arkansas
B- Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State
C- LSU, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky
D- Florida, Florida State (gets first offer), Georgia, South Carolina

then make an offer for...
E- North Carolina, North Carolina State, Virginia, Virginia Tech (all four schools invited at the same time)

The key part of this plan is to actually "double down" in states you already have. Florida State would join in seconds. Texas... *sighs* I don't know. I think they are leaning SEC much more than they let on. Those two "ace jewels" get you to SEC 16. No year one for SEC 16 though. Offer the entire block of NCx2, VAx2 right away. Duke can join the Big East in basketball and abandon football as they have always wanted to. Duke, Wake, Syracuse, Notre Dame added to the Big East lineup would command a respectable offer from Networks. Even ESPN would be all over that. Or Duke could just be Independent in basketball and have a Notre Dame/NBC type deal with ESPN! I really doubt that Duke would consider joining the SEC, much less fit in if they did. To be fair, I don't think the Big Ten has any better shot of landing them. Duke going through the big-budget gauntlet of land grant regional schools in the Big Ten would significantly reduce their win totals. And mind you, Coach K is the reason for their success. Assuming he's not an android in disguise, Duke higher-ups might already be planing Post Joe Pa-esque meetings. Their TV value will naturally come down without Coach K. Shane Battier or another popular figure in Duke lore would not be a bad option (and maybe the best option) from a branding standpoint.

Also, the Big Ten would be hard-pressed to match this 20-school Southern Death Star.

Adding: Notre Dame, Oklahoma ect. may not be enough to overcome the facepalm of completely missing out on the states of Texas, North Carolina and Virginia.

The TV contract for: Alabama, Auburn, Texas, Texas A&M, Tennessee, Florida, LSU, Georgia football all in one conference would be impossible to beat. As a bonus (and oh what a bonus)... you can add North Carolina and Kentucky basketball to that same contract. This is unbeatable on the open market. Ala carte, cord cutting, Netflix whatever the future holds, this is by far the most valuable collection of 20 athletic programs possible.

The Big Ten could only prevent this by striking beforehand. Something like...

Offer for Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas all at once.
Offer for Missouri, Connecticut, Notre Dame afterwards.

You cede Virginia and North Carolina to the SEC, but you do prevent their Death Star's full potential.

A- Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kansas
B- Illinois, Northwestern, Iowa, Missouri
C- Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Michigan State
D- Notre Dame, Indiana, Purdue, Ohio State
E- Maryland, Rutgers, Connecticut, Penn State

Assuming you can't get Missouri, Iowa State is an AAU-certified fill in. Syracuse might enter the picture at that point.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1120 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 71, 72, 73, 74, 75

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